The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1894-01-24

a freshness about the whole affair that was
delightful and even those who stood for
two hours in aisle and lobby had no inclina-
ton to leave until the curtain fell on the
last tableaux. The net proceeds were about
S2ZO Ihe entertainment was given for the
purpose of raising funds with which to pur-
chase plano for the use OF the public
schools, and it is pleasure to record the
success that crowned the undertaking. #
IS making no invidious distinction to saw
that to Mrs. Marsh more than to any one
else is due the success OF the affair From
its inception she has hai sole charge of the
drills, marches and choruses, and the
marked ability displayed by her i'm this
work, aided by the loyal assistance OF all
who took part, had very much 20 do in maxi
ing it one Of the most successful entertain.
ments by local talent ever given in Mont
pelier.
IN supreme court, last "wednesday
morning, the Rutland county case OF
Charles II. COngdon v. Howe Scale Com
pany was the first heard. Other Rutland
county cases heard that day were Solden
5. Brown v. Frank $. Nelson, an action of
assunpsit brought TO recover the value OF a
carload Of potatoes; the action for a broken
covenant in the case Of William G.. Marsh
V. William G. Fish; and the case of Re-
becca e. Thompson v. National Express
Company, an action brought hv plaintiff to
recover for injuries received by being run
over by one Of the defendants in Rutland
in 1892; and the chancery case of Admins
traitor of MarCellu3 A. Pierce's Estate V,
susan A. Pierce. The famous case of State
V. John O'Nrii of Rutland was called Thurs
day morning. L will be remembered that
the espondeut was in 1888, convicted of
5Ol violations Of the prOhibitory law, and
fined $1,000, with the alternative sentence
OF about fifty years in the house of correc-
ton. This judgment was affirmed by the
supreme court in 1886 and went to the
United States supreme court on writ of
error. IL was then dismissed for want of
jurisdiction and remanded. The question
argued Thursday was a motion in arrest of
Judgment States Attorney j c.. Jones of
Rutland county and G.. A. Prouty of New
port, for the state; Joel G. Baker of Rut-
land for the respondent. The state made
the claim that the motion in arrest was not
properly filed; that it should have been
made in county court, and that the supreme
court cannot now pass upon the question of
interstate commerce involved in the case
or on the question of excessive or cruel
punishment. Other Rutland county cases
heard Thursday were Leonard V. Village of
Rutland aud George f Brown, appellant.
" Nancy l.. Brown of Fairhaven, a case
arising out Of the settlement of homestead
dover. The case of Il. G. Bowers & Co. V,
Thomas Farrell Il Co., of Quincy, Mass,
was heard Friday morning. Ihe trouble in
this case arose from the refusal of plaintiff
70 accept monument manufactured by de-
fendant which was shipped to Cincinnati
and rejected there because of defects in
work and being made of inferior stock.
Fred A. Rowland argued the case for the
plaintiff, and s. 9. Shurtleff for defendants.
Adjourned till Tuesday morning. On re-
assembling Tuesday morning the Benning.
ton county case of State " David Leahey
was called Respondent was found guilty
in county court of assault with dangerous
weapon and sentenced to one year in the
house of correction He was taken before
the court, the exceptions in his case were
taken to Rutland to-day The Windham
county case of Evander II. Willis " Frank
l.. Adams, in which Judgment for the plain
tiff had been rendered, was also heard on
Tuesday.