The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-10-30
The SUPREME COURT.
ABSTRA CT or CASES Considered.
RECESS TAKEN.

Owing to the importance OF the case, ar.
guments in Judson K. Cushman VS.. Frank
lin ID. Hale, state auditor, which were COM
nenced Tuesday afternoon, were not fin.
ished until Wednesday, defendants coun-
sci, III. @. Bates, denying in argument the
claim of plaintiff that the notifies given
complainants in liquor cases brought under
the old law are vested right
ia mes M. Kent VS.. l.. ID. Miles, from
Washington county, was submitted by
counsel on briefs. Defendant, as sheriff of
Orleans county, arrested plaintiff at Mont
pelier on October B, 1887, on warrant is
sued by the states attorney on an indict-
meut for perjury, took him to Newport,
committed him to Jail there for safe keep
ing, and discharged him on the 18th day OF
the same month. Plaintiff was then re-
arrested by defendant on another warrant
issued on the same indictment, and was
confined in Jail about six months. 1t is for
the entire detention that plaintiff brought
this suit. Defendant claims that the com
mitment was lawful. The question here is
as to the sufficiency OF deft ndant's new pleas,
which were sustained in county court. 7.
j. Deavitt for plaintiff; W. W. Miles for
defendant
Upon the coming in of the court Wednes.
day afternoon, on motion of A. A. Hall of
St. Albans Otis M. Kelton OF Montgomery
was admitted to practice as an attorney
before the supreme court and the oath was
tice before Franklin county court under the
old rules.
Chief Justice Ross then announced that
when recess of the court was taken it
would be until Tuesday forenoon, Novem-
Der &c. when the decisions OF the court
would be rendered.
The case of Barre Water Company VS..
William M. Carnes ct al. was argued
Wednesday afternoon. In a former stage
Of the proceedings of this case the orator
| rIk at.,A1 NA..a s..s.,
the defendants completing their aqueduct
for supplying water for what is now the
city of Barre. The supreme court decided
that the injunction was improper The
question here is whether the counsel fees of
defendants are proper part of the damages
sustained by them by reason of the injunc.
ton. E. w. Bisbee and G. w. Wing for
orator; s. G. Shurteff and X. A. Hoar for
defendants.
A. H. Berry Shoe Company VS.. Ed ward
Deschenes, from franklin county, was
heard Wednesday afternoon. The case was
dismissed in county court, to which plant
if excepted. Defendant claims that the
county court had no jurisdiction in the case,
and also that the action was Improperly
brought, as the writ does not show whether
plaintiffs are corporation or partnership.
The action was brought in book account to
recover balance of $40 IS. Adams & Mott,
for plaintiffs, submitted the case on briefs.
K. A Ashland made the argument for de-
PENDANT.
In re Montgomery Spool & Bobbn Com
pany, from franklin county. The insolv-
ency court adjudged that the company was
insolvent from which decision the company
appealed. The creditors petition was dis.
missed in county court. The question here
is whether a stakeholder OF the company
had right to be petitioning creditor. o.
M. Keton and A. A. Hall for creditors ;
John Young and A. X. Brown for company
"a N of 40 RI n
day morning, Judge Taft announced the
following decisions: Albert K. Wheeler vs.
Gilbert M. Campbell; judgment of Gale
donna county court for plaintiff of S171.20
and costs was affirmed. Emma r Rey nolds
VS.. Kimball Chynoweth an action in as
sumpsit from Orange county, where plant.
iff obtained verdict for So, was affirmed.
| In re Norwich University was taken up
When the president of the institution pre-.
| ferred the usual request to Governor U. A.
Woodbury. for an order for June drill and
! five additional days for muster on the
parade. grounds Of the University at North
! field, to occur in June of the present year.
the governor, notwithstanding that such re-
quests have been hitherto honored by pre-
cediDg governors since 1871, questioned his
authority to do 80, and under section 795,
Revised Laws, submitted three questions to
the supreme court: First, whether he had
authority to order the corps of cadets for
| company inspection and drill, as provided
in section 1863, Revised Laws; second +,
whether he had authority to order them for
parade drill discipline and inspection, as
prescribed in section 3770, Revised Laws
third, il he had such authority, il the
acknowledgement is authorized to pay
| for such drill and inspection as the Ma.
tional Guard OF Vermont is paid. The case
of the University was presented by Hon.
Frank Plumley 1t appeared that the
school was established at Norwich as mill
itary school in 1919, incorporated in 1886,
and removed to Mortified in 1876. The
branch of the National Guard Of Vermont
in 1871, under law of 1870, and are now con.
sidered as a section Of artillery, having two
cannons. Up to the present ear the cadets,
who are enlisted, have not taken oaths re-
quired by law before being allowed pay for
their service, but since the question has
arisen have done so. By custom OF the
school the money received for drill and mus
ter has been retained by the University, -
and, if allowed, it will for this current year
there being forty nine enlisted men in SER
vice at drill and muster for six days at So
per day, amounting to 1888, with $50 addi-
tional, charged for rent of armory and
| transportation of tents, etc. A decision of
the questions submitted will determine the
status Of the University to the organized
militia. The governor granted the order
for drill and muster, subject to the decision
OF the supreme court. No counsel appeared
in his behalf.
There being no further business for the
court, recess was taken until November
no