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


ct al, apis, vs.. the village of Brattlc-
boro. Plaintiffs are the joint owners of
the Crosby and Harmony blocks in the viii
lage of B~rattloboro. In 1895 the bailiffs of
tho village disconnected their private
sewer and connected same with a now
sewer system constructed by them, assess
inC petitioners as their share of expense
and benefit to the Crosby property, sl25. %.
and Harmony SLIPS. No bond was filed
with the clerk for payment of assessment
If finally ordered, ana defendants motion
to dismiss on that ground was overruled
in Wlndham County Court, who contend
that a bond is required by No. 10, acts OF
1894; while petitioner claims that under
the village charter of 1872 no bond is re-
quired. Waterman, Martin and Hit for
petitioners. Clark c. Fits for defendant.
Alonzo Starkey VS.. Fred NJ. Waite. n
case in audita quercla from Windham
county. was continued.
In Bridget Kavanagh VS.. Vermont Saw
ings bank. from Windham county, plain
tiff's evidence tended to show that on
Jan. G, 1850. she had on deposit in her wi
name in defendant bank s2ls5. on that
day she deposited In said bank 5000 in the
name of her niece. Mary Kavanagh, and
afterwards 500 more in Mary's name.
Plaintiff retained control of book. In the
book kept in the bank the $500 first depos-
tied purported to be signed by Mary. and
on July 10. 1856, $40 was withdrawn by
Mary on presentation by her OF book, and
was rcceiptcd for by her and was charged
up on tho book. In the fall of 1892 plain
tiff, desiring to withdraw some money
from the deposit in Mary's name. request
cd Mary to sign a transfer of the account
to her, who declined to do so. Plaintiff
then demanded payment of tho bank,
which refused payment, as the deposit was
in Mary's name. The court below direct
ed a verdict for defendant. NIaskins and
Stoddard for plaintiff. Waterman, Martin
and Hit for defendant.
II. d. Lindsay. admir-. of Pelkey estate
VS.. Canadian Pacific railway. Exceptions
were taken by both parties. Suit was
brought for the benefit of Edmond and
Rose Pelkey, the father and mother OF
Alleien Pelkey, a girl less than two years
old, who was killed July 2, 1894, by being
run over by an engine on the railroad
track at Newport. used and operated by
defendant. Plaintiff claimed TO recover
on the ground of defendants negligence,
In Orleans County Court q verdict was
ordered for defendant. Cook and Red
mond for plaintiff. w. d. Crane and
Bates and May for defendant.
The case of George Alger VS.. Lewis Nor
rill, apt, comes from Orleans county. In
tho Justice Court PLAINTIFF obtained a
judgment for s70.0S and costs, and in the
County Court his judgment was SS.S2 and
costs. Before the trial in Justice Court
s32 was rendered plaintiff and delivered To
the Justice In court. by whom 1t was deliv-
cred 10 the clerk of the County Court.
The question between the parties was the
amount Of hay which plaintiff sold defend
ant in February or March, 1876, and
which defendant drew from plaintihs
farm in Irasburgh. The defendant adj
mitted tina he drew away four loads of
hay from the barn, three loads OF which
were weighed in Newport ond one in Cow
entry, being altogether a total net weight
of 1880 pounds. Plaintiff was permitted to
show from measurements or the space
occupied by the hay that there ought TO
be more hay than defendant accounted for,
which evidence was taken subject to de-
fcndant's exceptions. John Young ana
Theophilus Grout for defendant, COOK and
Redmcsl for plaintiff.
Montpelier, May 1.-THE arguments in
the case of Nathan T. Sprague VS. WI,
J liam c. Fletcher, which were comneheeo
, Yesterday afternoon were nnlshco lhls
; forenoon. In 1898 a tax was voted or as
sessed on the grand list of that year on
the several corporations in Brandon, there
} being a town highway, fire district, graded
school,, and n town district scnooi taA'
and for all of which taxes defendant was
tax collector and distrained certain bank
stock OF plaintiff TO satisfy the taxes
against plaintiff in 1898. The sale was
made Jan. II, 1894, and the stock was biz
off by plaintiff. No transfer was MADE
Of the stock. The listers in Brandon N
1883 treated plaintiff as q NONRESIDENT dHo
listed him for First National bank Of
Brandon stock at $75,0N, live stock s640
and allowed him n deduction OF SlO,OO0
and added to this the value Of his real es'
tate IN the several corporations. Plain
tiff claimed to be a resident of Brandon
and made out his inventory on that theory
claiming n deduction for debts owing s.s7''
oCO. Defendants endeavored to prove tina
plaintiffs residence was in Brooklyn, N
Y. The court In Rutland county direct
ed a verdict for plaintiff for $l26l.s3. The
Jury by special verdict found thai
plaintiffs residence on April J., 1898
was in Brandon. Defendant claims
that the action Of the listers wa.
/. conclusive. The action is a %joindure OF
trespass and trover. @. A. Prouty fol
plaintiff, Joel G.. Baker and c. M. Wld'
appeared for defendant.
: Fullam G. Adams vs.. Foster & Jaquith
from Rutland county Is an action In tres
pass founded on section 4206 of Revised
Laws to recover Of defendant tereble
damages for cutting wood. timber and
trees standing and growing on land claim
ed by plaintiff in Mount Holly. The own
ership of about % acres of land Is In dis
pute. The verdict returned by the jury
gave the plaintiff about 500 damages
Defendant excepted to the charge Of thu
T. court. w. w. Stickney appeared for the
plaintiffs. Joel C. Bake ana G. l.. Howe
i, for the defendants.
The case of Calvin 3. Albee W. RUTLAND
street Railway company. an action II
which trespass and case were Joined from
anA Ill