Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-01-05

cases which had beon heard before him
aud also in one divorce case. -Four
O. the cases involve important points
.. law and will be taken to the Supreme
Court and 1t Is possible that one or more or
the others will be.
In the case OF L. E. Baldwin, adnlinistra-
tor, vs. tho town OF Worcester, In which
the plaintiff motioned to set aside the ver-
dict, claiming that it was contrary to the
evidence, the court stated that he orde~e
verdict for defendant under a misapprs-
bension of the facts established by the
evidence, but as the case involved another
question, which was also involved in the
case of Durfoy VS.. South Burlington, taken
to the Supreme Court from this term OF
County Court, lie thought 1t best that this
be taken also and therefore overruled tue
motion. The Misrepresentation was relative
to the question whether the pauper, Danisl
Durfey, was enauc pated Tho other ques-
ton involved is whether a parent under any
circumstances can upon application to
town bind such town to psy him for the
support OF son who has become OF age
In the case of L. K. Ward and wife VS..
the Congresa = tiona al church OF Undarhill aud
Hon. f. b. Tnft, court granted leave to de-
PENDANTS to amend their answer to CORES
pond with the decrees OF the Probate Court
j. j. Monahau and S. G. ShurtieH ap-
peare1 for the orator and L. F. Wilbur and
Seneca Haselton for the defendants.
In the case OF George H. Eddy VS.. tbs
town OF Sheburne, court denied the
motion to have comm ssion appoint
ed. He held that it was a ca2e be-
tween private parties. 1t appears from
the acts bsiore him that one Lgvallv psti-
tiored the sslectueu TO divert the course of
surface vater on Eddy's land from running
hi, ha ~, .Ira
of the surface water ON his own land with
out trouble to the town, and tho selectmen
saw fit to grant his prayer, but by what
right they had to divert the course of ths
stream the court did not know. Inasmuch
as the public were not concerned, but sim
ply the two PARTIES he did not think the
court had jurisdiction OF the and dis
missed it.
In the case Of Elizabeth Marshall vs..
Leonard Mernhall, in which the petitioner
sought divorce for intolerGble severity,
to petition was dismissed. Exceptions
we're taken by dsfenQuut and the case will
be carried 10 the Supreme Court. Judge
Sows said in substance that in the fell of
1887 the petitionee trssted the petitioner
shnmefully By SO fixing coal stove that
the gas escaped Into her bedroom three dif.
feront nights, causing her bodily injury
but ia 1889 negotiations Of peace were
prolfered TO the wife by the husband
and the Inducements and overtures were so
broad that they were accepted. They then
lived together for several months, she not
leaving his house until tbs spring Of 1890,
aud upon the reasons for their separation
the last time, hs did not care to grant bill
Of divorce, preierring that the suprems
Court take the responsibility.
The next decision was IN the case OF henry
Iofo Hardy of al THE "a
was tried by jury in the early part of the
present term and no general verdict was re-
turned, but special Gadngs II facts wore
found under instructions from the court.
The law applicable to the facts so found and
the unIisputcd facts in the case, were ar
Gued Tuesday, and the court rendered judg-
meut for the defendant. Exceptions were
taken by plaintiff Il. F. Wolcott and w.
l.. DuruaD appeared for the plaintiff, and
II. \. Dsavitt and Seneca Hase,tou for the
defendants.
The case of Lucia S. Hadley, adninstra-
triX, VS.. Ira w Thorp is action OF
trover, which was tried by jury with the
result that a verdict Of about S2OJ was re-
turned TOR tue plaintiff Since the trial q
motion Tor u now trial has been Gled by the
defendant, based on aflidaviis setting lortf
newly y-discoverei evidence. a hearing was
had on tho motion Tuesday. Judge Rowel
denied tho motion and rendered judsmen
on tho verdict V. a, Bullard and Senec,
IIa-leton appeared for the plaintiff and II
II. Alexander, j. j. Monahan aud w. l.
Burnap for the defendant.
Arthur j. Rowley, lawyer and notar'
public of Akron, O., was appointed com
missioner to take testimony in the case o
Sleber, ct Al, VS.. the National Sign com
pau7. As to the motion to increase tine in
junction bond made by defendant Tuesda
Judge RoUel reserved decision for turthe
advice.
In The case Of Peter Fisher VS.. Alber
Bernard, tie plaintiff sought to annul tn
marriage OF his daughter Mimic, who wa
l3 yeSrs old when married to defsodant, o
the ground that she was under the age c
legal consent and wns forced into the mar
riage. Court ruled that the age OF legs
consent of a female TO marry was II year
and that there was no fraud practiceI upo
the girl and dismissed ths petition. E1
ceptiops were taken by the potitionor
At thrss minutes OF noon every thing o
tho docket being disposed of and Clark Ra
reporting no more business that lie wa
aware OF, Judge Rowell told Sheriff keov,
that he might adjourn the Septs ber teri
Of Chittepden County Court without day
which the officer did very quickly and wit
much pleasure while the mem bora of Il
bar present listened with compiacepcy al
Lawyer Buruap sold he felt like cheering