The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-04-03
Washington County Court.

MINNIE L. RIcEv HERBERr RIoE.-Libel
for divorce, heard at an evening sessi IN
The defendant a few years ago was brake
man on the Central Vermont railroad. AL.
lured by the prospect OF greater pay, he
threw up his Job and went to Mexico where
he was IN gagged in various employments-
as brakeman, working in Smelling works,
etc. Though petitioner joined him twice,
they were never able to live together again
The petitioners story was an interesting
one. Both parties now reside in Mortified.
Bill granted for intoleraOle severity and
refusal to suppIri Petitioner was given
custody OF her six-year old daughter. Her
attorney was Frank Plumley. Defendant
made no appearance.
ALLEN v. DEwEY.-S. ID. Allen. assignee,
V. Mrs. Sarah A. Dewey and Capital Saw
ings Bank-W. H. Dewey aud G. f. Dewey
trustees. The plaintiff, as assignee OF the
Excelsior Granite Company, whose petition
Of insolvency was filed in the nsolvent
colrt OF Washington county, January %,
1894, claimed to recover the proceeds of GER
tain notes, checks, drafts and contracts
which were assigned by the Excelsior Gran
lite Company few days prior to the filing
of the petition to the defendant to secu re-
Or for money advanced and obligations
assumed in its behalf. The defendant
claimed that she was ignorant of the in
solvent condition of the company at the
time, and that her part of the matter was
done in entire good faith. Defendant was
embarrassed all through the trial by the
transactions of the granite company which
her counsel was unable to suppress While
there was much sympathy expressed for de-
PENDANT, the case seemed to turn upon the
fact that the transactions were not in the
ordinary course of doing business. The
case was submitted to the jury on Friday
forenoon, and verdict was returned that
plaintiff recover the sum of SO 1853 OF dam
ages and costs, being the entire amount,
with interest, claimed by plaintiff John
W. Gordon for plaintiff; G. w. Wing for
defendant.
JAMES Nj. BOUTWELL, ET AL. V. WILLIAM
MARI ri AL.-This is an action on the case
in four counts in which plaintiffs claim that
their business partnership Of polishing gran
ite at Barre was wholly destroyed and
ruined by defendants, who we're members
OF the Granite Manufacturers Association,
in consequence of boycott against them by
said association which was commenced
November 10, 1898, and ended April Is,
1894, when they were compelled by the cir
cumstances to sell out the business to Mari
& Gordon. They brought suit for $40 600
damages. The trial began Friday after.
noon, and is being stubbornly contested on
both sides Plaintiffs first witness was
John Dillon, who is one of the defendants
and had the management of the business
Against defendants objection, he was per-
mi to testify as to the amount of work
which each individual had done each month
at plaintiffs mill while they were in bust
ness, and showing how their business had
almost ceased in consequence of the al.
legged boycott by said association. The
feature of Saturday forenoon was the to ,ti-
mony of K. M. Tayntor OF Barre, the present
secretary OF the association. He declined
10 testify as 10 he acts of the association or
who were the members thereof, on the
ground that his doing so might subject him
to future criminal prosecution. The con-
tention Of counsel as to the question OF
privilege was feature of the case and the
question was left undecided on the adjourn
ment at noon. Upon the coming in of the
court, Monday afternoon, Judge Start ruled
that the acts of the Granite Manufacturers
Association might be such as would subject
witness to future criminal prosecution,
and, as the answer Of witness might be the
connecting link that would bring about
such prosecution, witness was not obliged
TO testify as to the acts of the association.
Thereupon defendants counsel, G. A {.
Prouty, arose and said that, upon consult
ing with his clients, he had concluded to
withdraw the question of privilege, as
neither he nor his clients believed that they
had violated any criminal law. In conse-
quence, the examination Of the witness, Tayn-
ter, proceeded. The bylaws and regula-
tions were produced and sworn to by him.
1t was also drawn out from him that on
May 8, 1892, the association voted that no
trade should be conducted by member Of
the association with person not member
OF said association; also other votes OF diff
ferent date and acts of the association OF
like tendency. W. P. Dillingham;, H. A.
Huse, j. II. Senter and w. A. Lord for
PLAINTIFFS c. A. Prouty Of Newport, j. p.
Lamson and G. W. Wing for defendants.