Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1892-09-22

apt; L. i. Baldwin, ad'r., vs.. town Of
Worcester; james Collins vs. Samuel Put
neaude; Nathan Lampars vs. john e.
Lavell, apt; Frank ii. steady vs. tie
Green 8; Wood Manufacturing company;
Ida GoIette VS.. May La CAapollel Thomas
Hart & Bro VS.. Aaron Tortheim George
W. Davis VI. Ellison e. Merrill, Joseph apt;
Cross, apt, VS.. Eugene Wool; Martha A.
Oliver apt, VS.. Richard D. Wheeeri
Francis Moroy vs.. James Tobin; George W.
Hurlburt. apt vs. estate of Wait Hurl.
burt; David a. Brodie vs. Edwin J.. Ripley,
George Alger vs.. joan and Daniel O Brien,
apt; George Alger vs. Daniel O'Brien,
apt; George Alger We. Daniel OBrien,
apt; Daniel O'Brlen W. j. w. Jones,
Flora Pratt W. John Hardy ct al. George
Woodworth vs.. William Bohnnnop, apt;
Martin Lyzott vs. Virginia Mahan; Henry
NJ Hull vs.. Euseb Sanctuary; Henry La
farier vs. John Hnrdy, ct al; Rulers Brown
Ira W. Thorp; Julia \. Richards vs.. the
Ph@nix Insurance company, Edward Carey
vs.. Jojeph Derway, apt; shpman & Allen
VS.. Chittendcn County Agricultural society;
William O'Brien vs.. Pascal Delage, ct al
John w. Hayes VS.. Z. W. Biakely; George
T. Smith 81 Co. vs.. Henry o. Smith; j. Ii.
May w. W. f. Quiilinnn, apt. Mckannon
Bros. Il Co., apt, vs.. n. A. Frost: Sam
George George Ager w. Guy loss;
Alger VS.. Patrick McDonougb, apt.
Homer Thompson VS.. L. J. Brown; Bur.
lington Beef company, apt. vs.. Carley &
Lessor; Anna puraut VS.. Chauncey ".
Brown; Joseph Delorme vs.. Alfred Bushey,
apt town Of Jericho vs. town of Under
hill; William Devino vs. the Csntral Ner-
mont Railroad company. Specially as
signed for trial September 27.
a jury vas impaneled in the case Of Mrs.
Eedley VS.. Peter Bordo, and in order 10
allow the plaintiff time to get witnesses tho
jury was excnsed until o'clock
W. /. Burnap made motion for con-
tinuance in tine ease of d. a. Brolis vs. E.
l.. Ripley, on tho ground that several things
patents upon newspaper presses-which
would have an impor t1nt bearing in it, had
not been determined, but were still pending,
aud also because OF lack Of time l.. F.
Wilbur answered for the plaintiff, denying
that defendant had had insufficient time
and claiming that nothing could he expected
to come from said patents other than
had already appeared. He referred to the
decision of the commissioner of patents who
held that the patents We're an infringement.
Seneca Hasslton followed in support of the
motion. Judge Rowe took the papers.
Taft and Wilbur appear for Brodie and
Burnap, Haselton and Wales for Ripley.
In the case Of the town of Jericho against
the town of Tn lerhill counsel for the lat,
ter town moved for e continuance. 1t vai
argus1 by J. j. Monahau and ). c. Shur,..
left for Undsrhill and by NJ. H. Alexander
for Jericho The court reser yed decision.
Court then took a recess until o'clock.
AN OLD HORSE CASE.
On the assembling OF court in the after,
noon, the trial of the HaIIey vs. BUrdo casa
was begun. 1t is an action brought to re-
cover for the alleged misrepresentation in
the sale OF horse The case wGs tried at
the September term of court in 800 and q
verdict of $50 and costs was given the
plaintiff. 1t was taken to the Supreme
Court on exceptions which were sustained
spd it was sent back by that tribunal to be
tried again. At the adjournment Of court
at 5;30 o'clock tho plaintiff had not cons
Guided her case. J. !. Eurisht and J. A
Brown are counsel for the plaintiff, and Il
| F. Wolcott for Bordo.