The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-10-23

Topsham, last April, for which he was con
vcted In justice court and after wards in
Orange county court, whore he was sen
fenced TO two months in the house OF cor.
rection at Rutland. The questions here are
as to the admission of evidence and CHI arge
of court at trial. r. M. Harvey for state
j. W. Gordon and j. II. Watson for re-
spondent.
The supreme court reassembled at 8: 81
O'Clock, Tuesday forenoon, and the cases
from Chittenden county were taken up
The first case heard was Henry w. Hui
ct al. vs.. Euzeb Sanctuary, an action in
trespass qudre clduSun1 to "A dam in Hines
burgh. Defendant claims to be the owner
of the property, and recovered his costs in
county court to which judgment plaintiff
excepted. X. Il. Hard for plaintiff; Il. E
Brown for defendant.
Ira w. Thorp VS.. A. ID. Robbins, apt
an action in trover, in which plaintiff claims
that defendant, as deputy sheriff, wrong
fully sold some property to satisfy chattel
mortgage held by Is. A. Hunt. Plaintiff OBJ.
tanned a judgment in county court for
$103.10 and costs The parties reside in
johnson. j. j. Monahan for plaintiffs sub.
mitted on brief by defendant.
Henry M. Brown VS.. Seth and Henry
Mead. Several questions are involved, of
which the principal one is whether the
former attorney of plaintiff had authority to
accept tender of amends of $40 paid into
court by defendants in former action in
trespass which resulted in the discontinue
ance of that suit. This action is brought in
trespass qudre ct0ltSuD under the statute to
recover treble damages. Defendant claims
that plaintiff is barred in this action by
judgment of discontinuance in former suit.
Charles l., Barney for plaintiff; J. j. Mona.
han and V. A. Billiard for defendant.
In the two cases of State VS.. Walter Mar
tin for keeping and selling Intoxicating
liquor, and State vs. John Sheridan, Apt,
for seling-all from Rutland county and all
involving the effect OF plea of guilty be-
fore justice of the peace-the respondents
claim Of right of an appeal in such cases
was denied by the court in decision rem.
dered Tuesday afternoon. The court de-
cided that there were no errors in the pro.
ceedipgs OF the court below and respondent
takes nothing by his exceptions Judgments
affirmed.
In State VS.. Walter Martin, for NUS ance,
In which he court below denied mo tion
to quash, Judgment affirmed and cause re-
manded.
In re Francis McKeough's estate, John
McKeough Apt, an appeal from probate of
will, the court at its last session decided
adversely to the appellant, who, by his at
torney, W. III. Bliss, made motion for
reargument. Motion allowed and case con-
tinued. II. s. Peck for es ate.
The arguments in the case of Judson e.
Cushman vs.. Franklin d. Hale were com
menced Tuesday afternoon. 1t is petition
for a mandamus to compel defendant, as
state auditor, to allow the claim of ped
TONER for mOieties in certain liquor cases
which were instituted by petitioner as
complainant prior to December l. 1894, he
being states attorney of Chittenden county
at that time, which cases have been since
prosecuted to final judgment and fines i'm
posed against certain respondents. The de-
PENDANT, as state auditor, ruled that COM
plainants were not entitled TO the one.
fourth of the fines on Judgment obtained
by the state since December /, 1891, institu.
ted before that date and also refused to
allow noieties on fines imposed prior to that
date where appeals had been taken ana
which after that date were paid into the
state treasury, as the legislature of 1894
fixed new schedule o! salaries for states
attorneys and repealed the moety law.
This is test case, as many like matters are
affected. j. e. Cushman and II. f. Brown
for petitioner; H. G. Bates for defendant
In State VS.. Effie Cox, alias Efiie Whaen,
and Rose Fourier, the respondents, were
tried in Chittenden county court for MUIR
der of Fred Fourier, convicted of man
slaughter, and each sentenced to twenty
years in the state prison at Windsor. Ex-
ceptions were filed in behalf of respondent
Fourier, but for various reasons they re-
NAMED uncompleted. On motion G. l.. Bar
ney was assigned Tuesday afternoon as her
counsel, exceptions to be completed be-
fore Judge Thompson before Novem Ger 10
The case was continued