Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-10-05

On theinCOmiug of County Court W edncS-
| lay morning the case of George W. Davis
| IF Wcstford vs. Ellison q Merrill, appellants.
. NJ Charlotte. was called. \ jury was en-
raneed without delay and the trial of the
| issue was begun.
In MAY. 1891, the plaintiff gave the de
PENDANTS a horse to break to harness. While
the defendants were attempting to train the
: animal il became. as they say. mrulv amt
umaua lcnble and threw itself, its head
striking ON stone, causing injuries
from which it died the following day,
The plaintiff sues to recover the worth of the
horse on the ground that defendants handled
the horse in a careless and uuspillcd man
ucr. The plaintin $ evidcnc" tended to place
the value of the horse at 800, while the
testimony of the defendants went to prove
that the beast was worthless.
In their rdcfcnse the defendants asserted that
they used due care and diligence in break
ing the horse and are therefore not liable.
VI. II. Alexander aud II. f. Wolcott ap-
peared for the plaintiff and j. j. Enright
and Hon. Henry Ballard for the defendants.
Michael McGrath came into court, pleaded
gliltv to II second offence of having. keep
il and selling intoxicating liquors and was
sentenced to be confined in the House Of
Correction for three months and pay fine
IF $40 with costs He taken to l|ut-
and Wednesday evening by Sheriff Reeves
At the assembling of County Court Thurs
lay morning the trial of the case of Davis
". Ellison and Merrill was resumed. The
introduction of testimony was concluded at
noon and iu the afternoon the four attor-
ueve argued tine case, recess being taken
Mt the completion of Mr.. Alexander's plea.
The grand jurors came in twice for advice
IN salient points of evidence in a case now
before them. II is uncertain when they
viii report
Court denied the motions for continuance
in the cases of Samuel Draiiin vs.. Daniel r.
Small. Harry NJ. Small vs.. Daniel +. Small
and W. w Baker vs. Daniel b. Small, hold
ing that the aiiidavit- presented were INSULT
rient The afiidavits tended to prove that
the defendant was too i'll to attend court.
Plaintiff Bahcr. who is a subsequent at
taching creditor to II. VI. Small and Drafiin,
whose suits were brought the same day.
through his attorney. J. j. Enright claimed
that there was a combination between them
and the defendant. who is Harry Small 5
father 10 defeat his claim. In the
argument before the court it was stated that
nraflin was bail for II. NJ. Small. and that
II. NJ. Small was bail for Drafiin. The
aS"s stand with court.
Is soon as court came in Friday morn
ing, Judge Muson charged the jury in the
case of Davis against Ellison Merrill
after which they retired. After being ou
two hours verdict was returned for thu
defendant TO recover costs.
BY agreement the case of c. w. Scarf VS.
Lewis MUIR formerly of this city but nov
ut Lynn. Mass, was next taken up. \ imN
was ompanped with but very little delay
Hon. H. j. Foster, first counsel for th
plaintiff. and Hon. Henry Ballard in be
half of Lewis MUIR made the opening state
ucuts TO the jury Both statements, tn
-i~1 of which is given below, were broa,
and sweeping. but how much of them vii
DE ~uh,tautiatrd hv evidence the vcrdic
in the case will disclose.
Mr.. Foster stated that in January, 1891
MIR. MUIR. in answer to an advertisement
wrote Mr. Scarf. representing that he wa
engaged in the shoe buSines, in san Fran
riscp CAL. and that he was greatly trouble
10y labor strikes Mr Scarf was livin
E"rc. being part owner Of the Ferguson {
ScarI addition. Mr.. Scarf believed that
was possible to get manufacturing enterprise
to locate ON the property, which woul
greatly enhance its value.
Shortly afterward Mr. MUIR submitted
proposition to Mr Scarf, that if Mr.. Scarf
would erect and fit up suitable buildn
for the business. with free rental for iiN
years give him $1,000 in cash within on
year after the establishment of the businc,
here, and pay for the fraghting he woul
come. h" agreeing to put $4,000 capti
into it the first year and 800. 900 thereafter
This proposition was accepted 10y N
Scarf, and. with these conditions cnbodic
therein Nj, MUIR signed a contract
prcupv the buildng. to be built 10y NJ
Scarf, for the carrying ON of his bu,ine
for term og five years
Mr. S.urfT luIilt and tittp1 IN, tho ItIi 4 it