The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1894-03-21
Washington County Court.

THE first jury case tried was l.. c. Cady,
apt, v. Reynolds & Thwing, Barre. 1t
seems that on December II, 1892 the de-
PENDANTS took possession of a stove and
held lien note against the plaintiff, and
that, after the seizure, they had the con-
stable, w. III. Buchanan, foreclose the note.
Plaintiff claimed that the process was
Illegal and brought an action in which
trover and trespass were joined. The face
OF the lien note was little over SID.
Verdict of S908 in favor of the plaintiff.
j. w. Gordon and o. B. Boyce, assisted by
Barney & iHoar, for the plaintiff; E. w.
Bisbee for the defendants.
THE question in the two cases being the
same, II. I. Cutting, apt, V. Estate OF j. w.
Ellis and Edwin X. Jones v. Estate of j.
W. Ellis, were heard together by the court
on motion of the defendants counsel to dis.
miss the new counts, raising the issue OF a
misjonder. The motion was overruled.
Plaintiffs appeal from the findings of the
commissioners. The controversy arises
over the sale OF stock in the Sioux City Val
ley Land Company. The question will be
taken to the supreme court s. q. ShurtleH
for the plaintiffs; Dillingham;, Huse &
Rowland for the defendants.
THE respondent in State v. Horace
e. Bliss, formerly the proprietor of the
Union House in Montpelier, was brought
into court and sentenced on Thursday, hav-
ing previously pleaded guilty to the charge
of keeping Intoxicating liquor for sale, and
also for keeping a nuisance. He was given
the minimum sentence in each case, being,
without question, out OF the business, and
having recently met with financial reverses
He is also in very poor health, and there
are some other peculiar circumstances sur
| rounding the case. In the matter of the
keeping for sale he was fined 50 and given
one month in the house OF correction at
Rutland; in the nuisance case he was fined
n a II. ut Ptnfl ntad
to which place he was escorted on Saturday
by Sheriff K. w. Howe. Respondents at
tOrneys were j. Fl. Senter and w. A. Lord
| In State v. George McGilfray, the re-
spondent was arraigned Thursday after
noon upon his own request to answer TO
charge of grand larceny, to. which he
pleaded guilty. Respondent is nineteen
| years OF age, his occupation tramp. He
was assisted by the overseer OF the poor OF
Roxbury to nights lodging last February
and, upon leaving his lodging place in the
morning, took with him gold ring, chain
and other jewelry, worth about $2S be-
longing to one Cora Cleveland. He was
soon after arrested on the railroad track
between Randolph and Sharon. He was
| given two years at the states prison at
Windsor. JIG. Wing for respondent.
In State V. Eugene Loveland, alias Calvin
Cleveland, the respondent pleaded guilty on
| Thursday afternoon to the charge of big
| land, with whom he formerly lived at Wat
erbury. The second marriage was cele-
brated at Keeseville, N. Y, where he lived
with one Ellen Waite for the space Of a
year and half as her husband. Divorce
proceedings were begun by the aforesaid
Susan and the situation was brought to
light. The respondents story is TO the
effect that at the time of his second mar
rage he supposed that his wife Susan had
already obtained divorce, as he had been
so informed in an interview with his
father-in-law; and that when he ascertained
that such was not the case, he and the
woman whom he supposed was his legal wife
at once separated and had not lived together
since He was sentenced to two years al
Windsor.
MARY III. SPRINGER V. III. g. SMITH, ap-
pellant, was an action Of trover for the con
version of POI spruce logs. Plaintiff resides
in Worcester and the defendant in Gilmore
but his mill is in Worcester. The issue was
whether or not the defendant had sawed al
of the plaintiffs logs into single as per con
tract. He commended that the number o.
plaintiffs logs in his mill-pond did not ex
coed fifty. The plaintiff contended that the
logs in question measured nearly five thou
sand feet, and produced contract for saw
ing signed by the defendant to that effect
but the defendant denied that the signature
was his. Verdict for the plaintiff in thu
sum of 1880 and costs Fred l.. Laird To-
plaintiffs j. III. Senter and w. A. Lord To-
defendant.
JOSEPHINE GALAIsE v. III. w. HALL, apt.
| was an action in trOver for the conversion
of a piano. Plaintiff resides in Montpelie
and the defendant in Burlington, where h
Ia the manager OF the Bailey music rooms