Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-05-21

firmed this afternoon. II. w. Love for
plaintiff. Butler and Maloney for the de-
fendant.
Montpelier, May 10.-Court reconvened
at 0 O'Clock this morning the entire bench
being present for the first time this term.
The case of N. N. Belts, cashier, VS..
Charles Johnson and Howe Scale COM
pany and John Il. Martin, trustees was
taken up, being an action of debt on a
Pennsylvania judgment dated Jan. 10, 1895,
for S754.19 and costs. BY order OF the
court plaintiff filed n copy of the court
record in that State which record defend
ant incorporated in his general demurrer
and the demurrer was sustained pro forma
in Rutland County Court, which gave de-
PENDANT judgment to recover his costs.
The case had it's origin in a judgment note
of 5000 dated May 0, 1881, given to plaintiff
as collateral security and Of which de-
PENDANT was one of the %signers. The prin-
cipal question raised by defendant is that
no personal service upon defendant Is
shown by the record in obtaining tho
Judgment Plaintiff claims that under the
PENNSYLVANIA law two returns against de-
PENDANT Of "nihil habct" in scire facias
are equivalent to personal service. r. q.
Swinington for plaintiff, r. c. Partridge
for defendant.
Willard C.. Danyew VS.. George Kelsey,
apt, from Addison county and a. r.
Straw VS.. John Straw from 1.amoille
county were both continued.
Ransom Morrill, VS.. Lyman G.. Fish from
Rutland county stands as submitted on
briefs. Butler 81 Moloney for plaintiff;
A. G.. Coolidge for defendant.
In re Hannah Il. Picrce's estate, Burton
p. Pierce, administrator of estate of
Samuel Il. Pierce, guardian. claimant, Don
C. Pollard, admir-, apt. This case was
heard at the January term and Is from
Windsor county. Judgment of County
Court that the appellant AZ administrator
of Hannah u. Piercc's estate recover OF
appellee as administrator of estate Of
Samuel Pierce, guardian. S93O.16 and costs,
affirmed. Judgment to be certified to Pro-
bate Court. w. W. Stickney and w. Il.
Johnson were for appellant.
O. w. Reynolds VS.. Calvin Haskins ct
al. is q bill in Chancery to reform a decd
of real estate in Undcrhill, given with a
wrong description and TO relieve the title
from tho cloud OF an attachment. p. X.
Gleed for orator; ]. ]. Monahan and NJ.
a. Bingham for l.. T.. and q. A. Terrlll.
State VS.. Clinton L. Sherwood Is now
being argued. Respondent was convicted
in Rutland County Court OF bigamy on
an information fled by States Attorney
Jones. The evidence Of the State tended
to show that the respondent was married
to Nellie r. Barry at Montpelier. VT, by
Rev. ]. Edward Wright on Aug. 25, 1891
and resided with her as his wife at New
port, n. H., until the first part of the
present year and also that respondent was
married 10 Matte II. barney IN the city
of Rutland April s, 1896. Respondent
claims that the first marriage was void.
States Attorney J. G. Jones for State;
Butler d Moloney for respondent.
Montpelier, May 2O-The Supreme Court
has decided that the case of State VS..
Lydia a. Stevenson from Franklin county
shall be re-argued and has been assigned
for Friday morning.
The case of Edward II. Geno vs.. Fall
Mountain Paper company came on for ar
gument this morning and is a petition for
a new trial by defendant. In the former
trial in Rutland County Court the plain
tiff recovered 1921 damages for injuries
/ received in defendants mill in Rocking
ham for negligence in not furnishing him
with a safe place to work. This judgment
was sustained in the Supreme Court. The
accident happened May 81, 1891. Defend
: ant n few days after he began work while
oiling a countershaft, had his clothes
caught Upon the shaft or pulley and was
carried around the shaft, receiving a brok-
| en- leg and n dislocated shoulder and other
/ injuries. His testimony at the trial was
to the effect that he was ordered to do
this work by a man who gave him no in
structlons as to how to do il. Defendant
J claims to have newly discovered evidence
l to the effect that plaintiff received no in
| structions from any one having authority
g TO give them and also that the verdict
i was contrary to the evidence. l.. NJ. Read
and T.. J.. Waterman for defendant and
petitioner. c.. a. Prouty and Butler &
: Maloney for plaintiff.
4 y. j. Brown vs. West. Stone & Co, from
Windsor county was continued.
4 II. NJ. Walston ct al. VS.. Elizabeth Smith
i ct al. was begun this forenoon and is a
chancery suit from Addison county The
aforesaid Elizabeth is the widow of AL
: fred Smith and was his second wife. He
I left eight children, who are the orators
I and who seek that a trustee he establish
!, ed for their benefit. The maircquestion in
5 the case relating TO a farm in Huntington
: conveyed to Elizabeth BY the deceased
d through a third party in 1889. L. f. Will
n bur and C. NJ. Wilds for orators: Daniel
Roberts and r.. b. Taft for defendants.
In state VS.. Clinton L. Sherwood from
Rutland county, which was argued yes
; terday and in which the respondent was
4 convicted of bigamy, the court this after
l noon sustained the respondents excep-
$ lions. reversed the judgment and remand
( ed the same for a new trial.
State VS.. Clinton l.. Sherwood, from
y Rutland county, is an excellent i~llustra-
+ ton OF the advantage OF our present sys-
tenn OF holding Supreme Court at Mont
pelier. The respondent was prosecuted
: for biGainy. The second marriage &C.
CURED April 8, 1896. The information was
filed in Rutland County Court April 10,
: 1896, and trial was had by jury In the
n County Court and a verdict of guilty was
. returned. Exceptions taken by respondent
e were heard In the Supreme Court May 10,
j and May 20, 1896, the case was decided in
t the Supreme Court and Judgment reversed,
D verdict set aside and cause remanded for
= new trial. Under tho old system the case
:. could not have been heard In the Supreme
g Court before February. 1897.
: AN OLD PRACTITIONER.
= 1t is somewhat remarkable that Hon.
: Daniel Roberts. who made a very vigorous
I argument for defendants on the compli-
Gated subject of trusts in the chancery
case of Walston ct al vs.. Smith ct al. this
t afternoon should have made his first ar
o gument In the Supreme Court nearly so
Q years ago as appears by Vol 0, Vermont
o Reports, whore his name appears as D..
:, Roberts, jr In the case OF Simeon Kimp-
: ton VS.. Horatio Walker. which was ar
gued at the February term, 1887, for tina
d Supreme Court of Bennington county, he
being counsel for plaintiff.
Cntarrh Cured,
" / a -