Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1892-06-10
ADDISON CoJhIy CouRr.

nam OF Cornwall and Hon. NJ. b. Cove
of Lincoln assistant judges. The other
officers of the court are: Rufus Vain
wright of Mddlebury, clerk; Howard
Clark of Lincoln, sheriff; Frank l.. Fish
of Nergennes, States attorney, and Miss
Ella Nj. Ballou of Rutland, reporter.
Among the out-of-town members of the
bar who were present at the opening
were Daniel Roberts, L. II. Hard, Tor
rey f. Wales, John j. Enright and Hen
ry Ballard of Burlington; George W.
Grandey. f, W. Tuttle and +. l.. Fish of
Nergennes; ii. G.. Royce and Felix w.
McGettrick of st. Adams; Charles f.
kinsley of Salisbury and W. w. Rider of
Bristol.
Court opened with prayer by Rev. DR..
L. ii. Archibald of Middlebury, after
which the usual proclamations were
made by the sheriff. The petit jurors
were then called and sworn. A list of
the jurors has already been printed.
Upon calling over the calendar of cases
set for the jury these were discontinued !:
Joseph Battell V. Wallace V. Fisher, VIM.
Whittemore V. Thomas Vail ct al. appel
lants, and Frank II. Winch V. Darwin
Rider. These were entered continued:
Frank II. Winch V. Darwin Rider ct al,
George W. Fowle V. Virgil w. Blanch-
ard, and Nirtulon Rich's executor V. Car
oline ButtOlph, appellant. The follow
ing were marked for trial: Charles Dano
ct al, appellants, V. George G.. Sessions,
James +. Ledwich vs.. Charles +. Smith,
Frank Whittemore V. Charles lIagan,
Thomas Morrison 5 administrator ct al. V.
Eleazer Shattuck. Dyer A. Conger V. Pat
rick O'Neil ct AL, Ernest W. Kimpton V.
Rufus Barnard, Phelps b. Smiths exec
utor V. Nancy NJ. Smith, appellant, War
dens of First Episcopal society of Addi
son County, appellants, V. Isaac l.. Eells
ct al, and Harriet NJ. Henderson V. VIII
Eastwood. David Piper's executor v.
James Nj. Piper, appellant, was marked
for court hearing.
The work of the term was then prompt
ly begun. it being found that there was
a case ali ready for trial-something I'M
usual on the forenoon of the first day.
The case was Charles Dano ct al, appel
lants, vs.. George &. Sessions, and it was
proceeded with at once. The plaintiffs,
Charles Dano and his brother-in-law, who
formerly lived in East Middlebury, claim
ed that in 1855 they bought from the de-
fendint piece of wood land on the
mountain east of Middebury, that the
defendant sold them in the transaction
100 acres of land at 81 per acre and that
when they had the land surveyed some
years later by President Brainerd the lot
turned out to be about 49, acres short, or,
in other words. contained only about %
acres instead of 100 and suit was there
fore brought to recover the difference at
81 per acre. For the defense, it was
claimed, first, that no particular number
of acres were specified in the sale, al
though the lot had been passed from one
party to another from time to time as con-
tanning "l6O acres, more or less, and was
so decided to the plaintiffs by the defend
ants brother. Hiram c. Sessions, the de-
PENDANT claiming, secondly, that ii. c.
Sessions and not himself owned the lot
and made the sale. The conveyance was
made by II. c. Sessions to the plaintiffs,
George Sessions having decided the land
to him four or five years previously. But,
the plaintiffs strongly insisted, Geo. Ses-
siOns was actually the owner and the
trade was made with him, the deed to
his brother having been made for occult
purposes and ii. G. Sessions never having
exercised any ownership over the land
and having nothing to do with the sale
except to sign the deed at the defend
ants request There was clearly some
misapprehensiOn on one side or the other.
The case lasted all day Tuesday and half
of Wednesday, going to the jury just at
the noon recess. Charles NJ. Wilds of
Middlebury was the counsel for the
plaintiffs and VIM. III. Bliss of Middle
bury conducted the defense. The Jury
were in their seats when court went in
after dinner on Wednesday and rendered
a verdict for the plaintiffs, that they re-
cover Sl30 and their costs. Dano was
the virtual plaintiff, as Guyette sold out
to him soon after the purchase from Ses-
sions.
The case of George W. Fovle VS.. Nir-
gil W. Blanchard next came up on mo-
ton for continuance, filed by A. Il. Tup-
per of Middlebury for the defendant.
This case is of especial interest to Mid
dlebury people for the reason that it re-
calls the career here of George Wright,
formerly operator for the Commercial
Union Telegraph Co. Shortly before his
sudden disappearance from Middlebury,
Wright, as DR.. Blanchard claims, sold to
the defendant some of the machinery in
the Cutter marble mill, Wright having
his office in the former Office of the Mar
BILE company adjoining the mill. Wright
claimed to be the agent of George W.
Fowle of Boston, owner of the machin-
cry, and showed the doctor letter au-
thOriZing him to sell it. DR.. Blanchard
bought some of it and paid Wright so.
Mr.. FOwle got hint of the matter and
came here to look INTO il, whereupon
Wright disappeared. leaving numerous
creditors in town, and has never been
seen here since. Fowle denied ever Civ
ing Wright authority to sell the ma
chinery and brought this replevin suit
against the defendant. DR.. Blanchard
got a continuance on the ground that he
cannot at present leave New York and
that he cannot at this term procure the
attendance of Wright, very material but
very absent witness. The defense has
to bear the costs of the continuance. MR.
Wilds appears for the plaintiff and Mr..
Upper for the defendant.
After a half hours delay another trial
was got under way, and it was one of
considerable interest and importance.
The case Is James F. Ledwch VS.. Charles
F. Smith, and was brought to recover
damages from the defendant for alienat-
ing the affections of the plaintiffs wife.
I.edwich is laboring man, 81 years of
age, and was married in Weybridge in
1851 his wife being then 10 wears old