Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-01-12

Tho arguments in two cases took up the
lima of Supreme Court Wednesday. At 8
n'elock the case OF John Dumas Va. Charles
Stone was called. w. l.. Burnap opened
for the defendant aud he was followed by
Daniel Roberts for the plaintiff, after which
II. f. Wolcott closed for the defendant.
Tho case OF j.. f. Wilbur vs.. Cyrus Prior
was next taken up, but question as to the
Interpretation OF a rule OF the bar being
raised by Lawyer Burnap, the case was put
over till Thursday in order that the court
might consider 1t.
The case of Joel b. Bartlett adminstra-
tor vs.. O. j. Walker IL Bros, was heard.
Lengthy arguments were made by counsel,
Ut the conclusion of which, at $3.50 o'clock,
court took recess until Thursday.
H. f. Wilbur and II. S. Peck appeared for
Mr.. Bartlett and w. i. Burnap and IL.
j. W olcott for Mr.. Waller.
Upon the coming in of Supreme Court
Thursday morning the case of Dulcina Foy,
Administrative, Vs. the Central Vermont
Railroad company was taken up and argued.
Hen. c. w. Writer'S opened for the defend
ant corporation, then Hon. j. r. Hard and
G. N. Wids esq, followed for the plaintiff,
and {. A. Prouty, esq, closing Tor the de
PENDANT. They oil made strong arguments,
es might lie expected, the first three talking
hour and - minutes, The court took the
documents in the case.
j. w. Russell, esq, was associated with
MIR. Burnap in the case of Joel Bartlett ad-
| ministrator, va. Q. j. Walker a. Bros, which
was heard Wednesday.
On the question raised by LAWYER Burnap
Wednesday in the of i. +. Wilbur vs..
Cyrus Prior, the interpret nton OF rule of
tho bar relating TO the time when the coun-
fa shall exchange briefs, court sustained
Mr.. Burnap.
The case was csllad at the opening Of the
afternoon session. Hon. Henry Ballard ar
Eued for the defendant and Mr.. " Iibur for
the plaintiff, after which court TOOK q re-
cess until Friday morning.
Tho hearing IN the case Of L. F. Wilbur
W.. Cyrus Prior resumed at the opening
Of court Friday, Mr.. Burnap arguing for
the PLAINTIFF and MIR. Monehan for the de-
PENDANTS. Then the OF State vs. Charles
J. Sutton, C. motion for a continuance was
beard. Attorney Ballard made the opening
argument for the respondent and States
Attorney Cushmsn followed for tho State,
after which Mr.. Burnap closed for the de-
PENDANT.
The case of Peter Fisher vs. Albert Ber-
nnrd was next argued, the states attorney
appearing for the petitioner and NJ. H.
ments were finished az 1l;40 o'clock and
there being no other case to be heard court
took recess until o'clock.
In the afternoon decisions in three Of the
cases heard were delivered.
Ia the case of Samantha Durfey vs. town
of South Burlington the judgment of the
County Court was affirmed. The suit was
Instituted by Mrs Durf9y to recover on an
alleged contract for the support OF her Grip
pied son. \ verdict obtained in the
County Court for the amount OF the claim.
The defendant took exceptions, claiming no
recovery could lie had on tao ground
that the cripple was her own bon, and there
fore there was no consideration for the
tract, although the boy was past n years
Of age. Judge Taft gave toe opinion. Hon.
-. j. Foster and Judge Easeltor were coun-
eel for Mrs Durfey and Judge Wales and
Hon. w. S. Burrap for the town.
Ia the case OF John Dumas VS.. Charle3
stone, the finding of the referee S. G.
Shurtletf, esq, Of Montpelier, was sustain
ed. Dumas was employed by Stone in lay
ing stone en- the Episcopal church at Shell
burne. For handling the stone defendant
erected derrick, the plaintiff assisting in
its erection at plaintiffs request
but he would not work under 1t after it was
completed. He was set al work on the wel!
near by and be was injured about the back
by the breaking OF the guy rope, which
allowed stone to strike him. Stone was
esliPent in not having the derrick tested.
The plaintiff spoke to him Of the INSULT
cheney of the guy and in keeping at work
defendant voluG tari!y assumed the responsi-
biity, knowing that the guy rope was in
fuliicient. The facts were these: The plnn-
tif was not negliGent defendant was and
by reason of it plaintiff suffered. Judge
Rowell delivered the opinion.
The plaintiff will recover s210 damages.
Roberts & Roberts appeared for the plaintiff
enk Burnnp and Woicott for the defendant
IL the case Of State VS.. Charles j. sutton,
IL which exceptions were taken by respond
ent TO the ruling of Judge Thompson in the
County Court in allowing the State TO
sn3sld the copy OF appeal by striking out
the word first and inserting in lieu there
OF the word "third," court held that
there was no error in proceedings, the re
spondent could take nothing 10y exceptions
and ordered the mittimus issued to carry
out sentence imposed by the County Court.
Chief Judge Ross delivered the opinion
States Attorney Cushman appeared for the
State end J. j. Enright, W. L. Burnap and
Henry Ballard for the respondent.
The case OF Fisher vs.. Bernard, in which
the petitioner sought to annul the marriage
Of mis- daughter, il with the court; Munsoa
Judge.
Tie case of Edward Yearteau, apt. VS..
tine estate Of Joseph Bacon, heard one year
ago, is still with the court Munsou judge;
as also is the case of i. F. Wilbur VS. Cyrus
Prior, Start judge; the divorce case OF
Marshall VS. Marshall the case of Dulona
Foy, adruiuistratrix vs.. Central Vermont
Railroad company, Tyler judge; and tho
case Of joel 3. Bartlett VS.. U. j. Walker &
ETcs
Tbs case of L. 3. Baldwin, administrator
vs.. the town of " orcester was continued to
the general term Of the Supreme Court at
Montpelier.
The business of the term being finished,
e. the request of Judge Ross, Sheriff Reeves
adjourned court without day.
O!vcman, lovely woman, why will you suf-
fer SO,
Why bear such pain and anguish, and agony
Of Woet
Why don't you seek the remedy-the one
bats all tho gor