Bennington semi-weekly banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 1894-1902, 1895-05-17
The Surname Court.

In the Supreme Court at Montpelier,
Tuesday, the Bennington County cases
were the first argued Rose A. Murray
VS.. Frank H. Mattison and four others
was argued by Batchelder and Barber
for plaintiff and w. B. Sheldon for de-
PENDANTS. This is an action of trespass
to the person and goods of the plaintiff,
resulting from the service of a writ of
possession by defendant, MaUtison, as
deputy sheriff and his assistants. The
writ was founded on judgment against
PLAINTIFF husband, under which the de-
PENDANTS claim to'justify. The plaintiff
claims that she was inpossesson of the
demanded premises in her own right, in
dependently of her husband, and that
the writ furnishes the officer and his aids
no protection.
w. H. StOckwell VS.. j. H. Fitzgerald
and,23 others.was argued by W. B Shell
don for orator and j. X. Batchelder for
defendant, Fitzgerald. This is bill in
chancery to settle the rights of all par.
ties in road which Abram N. Pruyn
had surveyed across tract of IS acres
in Bennington which he cut up into
building lots and sold to numerous pur-
chasers. He sold nine acres, including
all his frontage on the highway, to John
MCKinty, reserving the road across it to
his back lots. McKinty sold the land on
the west side of the road reserved and
later fenced in part of the road with
the lands he retained on the east. McKin-
ty, later on, sold the lands on the east to
Fitzgerald, who claims so much of the
road as is enclosed with his lands, by ad
verse possession, McKinty's grantees on
the west claim to the original survey of
the road. The orator and some of the
defendants owning various parcels of the
back lands seek to have their rights in
the road declared and to have McKinty's
grantees enjoined from further inter-
rupting their enjoyment of the same.
ENTHUSIASTICALLY first case heard was
Mary l.. S. HARDWOOD VS.. Bennington IL
Rutland K. r. Co., which was an action
to recover for horse which was killed on
the railroad. Defendant claims that
plaintiff was negligent in leading the
horse thereby allowing the horse to get
on the railroad, which it did by jumping
the cattleguard from the highway. The
plaintiff claimed that, as the jury found
that the horse got on the track by rea-
son of the insufficency of the cattle
guard, the doctrine of contributory neg
ligence did not apply. c. II. Darling APP
peared for plaintiff, Batchelder and
Bates for defendant.
Allen L. Graves ct al VS.. Herbert W..
Mattison was argued by Joel G. Baker
for orator, c. II, Darling for defendant.
This is bill in Chancery invoking the
mandatory power of the Court of Equity
of the wall of his brick building claimed
by the orators to have been erected on
their laud and so support tie remainder
of his wall adjoining orators land, that
the orators may excavate below defend
ants foundation, as is necessary to prop
erly erect a building on their land. This
action arose in the burned district in
Manchester Centre.
Sheldon and Cushman VS.. Town of
Bennington was argued by O. NJ. Barber
for the plaintiff, and G. II. Darling for
defendant. This is an action to recover
for professional services and disburse-
ments by plaintiffs, under employment
by defendants officers, in an action to
compel husband to maintain his wife,
to prevent her becoming charge upon
defendant town, as a pauper. The only
contention in behalf of defendant was
that the employment of plaintiffs for this
purpose was ultrd riUeS, i. O., that the
town had no power to incur liability to
plaintiffs for this purpose.
Decision is reserved in all the forego:
ing cases.
Charles Booyd VS.. Henry Blake was
continued.
INF. w. Goodall VS.. j. II. Hall, to re-
cover professional services of plaintiff as
a physician, judgment below, for PLAIN
tiff, was affirmed.
In Mary j. Bliss VS.. George M. Bemis,
for trespass to the person, judgment be-
low for defendant was affirmed.
S. S. Clemmons VS.. o. H. Danforth
for SANDER, remains with the court