The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-05-22
THE REFoRMER: BRATTLEBoRo VT. FRIDAY. MAY e. 1896
TIE SUPREME COURT.
The Resi- Ofthe Wimdham County Cases
FAX Question in the Spra@ut tase
from Brandon.

from Brandon,
The NAV term of the state suprem
court is still in progress, though ther
was an adjournment over from Frida
TO Tuesday. The hearing of the Wind
ham county cases was concluded Fri
dav. The sewer case, r.. G. Grossly e
al. ants. VS.. village Of Brattleboro, re
sistng assessment Of Sl2G -. was ar
pued by Waterman. Martin & Hit 70
fine village and &. c. Fits for appel
!ants. No bond was filed with thu
clerk for paymcnt of assessment i
finally ordered, and defendants motor
! To dismiss on that ground was over
ruled in WIndham county court. agains,
contention that bond is required by
No. 10. acts of 1894 while petitioner
claims that under the village charter
of 1872 no bond is required.
Bridget Kavanagh VS.. Vermont Say
ings bank. over deposit of some $500,
in the name of plaintiffs niece, Mary
CavaGauph which the bank refused to
BAY TO Bridget, without Mary's sigma
ture which the latter refused to give,
although Bridget had kept control Of
the book all the time. went up from
county court on exceptions from yer
diet for defendant, directed by the
court. Haskins and Stoddard for
plaintitI. Waterman. Martin and Hit
for defendant.
The Waite Stariey case was contin-
ued.
One of the most interesting of all
the cases was that from Rutland coun
ty. Nathan +. Sprapue against Viii
liam c. Fletcher an action brought
because of the sale by the defendant as
fax collector of the plaintiffs bank
stock TO satisfy various 1888 taxes in
Brandon. The sale was made in Jan,
uary 1894. the stock having been pre-
yiously distrained by the defendant,
and was hid off hy The plaintiff. No
transfer Of the stock was made. The
listers Of brandon in 1899 treated the
plaintiff as nonresident. and listed
him for the First National bank of
Brandon stock. valued at 80. 600 and
live stock. 500. They allowed him
deduction of $40 600. and added to this
the value Of his real estate in these
The plajntjff claimed
, residence in Brandon. and demanded
in his inventory a deduction for debts
,wino of sos7 0O0 The defendant en-
leayored in the lower courts to prove +!
hat the plaintiH resided in BROOKLYN. |
Ny The court helow directed YER |
lief far the nIaintitf for II o,;l. Oh. and /
n a sperial verdict the iury found /
hat op Anril lse3 the nlaintiff's res
denro was in brandon TN, defend /
mi claims that the action of the list
re was conclusive and final Joel G. /
}aker and G. NJ WiJds appeared for
no dofendant and e prantv for the
,laintig,
EniIan, 4 Adams vs Foster { ia.
NTH is an artion in trespass founded
N tho revised laws ia rerover of the
ofendant trehln d.n,aoes for ruttinr
q 600 fect If timbcr on land in Mount
Iollv ownad Inv tho nIaintiffs Owner.
hin Of about - acres of land is in
isn,te The verdict If county court
,aa 200 in favnr If tbn nIa,nt;F " il
{ Sticknny for tho nIaintitf ami .Jeel
nj
oIir < ,Ibcc vs Rutland streat rail. /
nv an art;on in which trrsnass and {
.nyer ucra ;oipa1 and whara a verdirt ,
ae diroc,od fnr Tho dnsnndant Iudo. I
,ant was ,f,irn,oS II " Iovc wss |
,nneeI For Tho ,l.iptig and Rulsr l. =
IoIono, for tho dafnndant ia
Mr Jipdsav adn9inistrator of pell,av |
canad;at PIE ,a;iwa, act;on r. |
,'.o,.a,. 60 ~, t'o,,at, ~ EJr,n,J .nd Id
ose peil;ev rho f,tbor and mntbar If a
lion pall;ev All less than two q
,ars oid wbn ,~as ,;Ilo1 Ipl, , 1soi y
!, he;ng run ~ ovsr hx On ena;no IN H. a
:; lroa ii+ ,ra al ~, Sewnor. nsed and n
a;ned "a rcno,e, On tbs gronnd ~ /
,sanda,t,S noaI;oancn IL Grlaons r
,nnty court n Tnrd;rt was ordorai for j
.fendant Tonl, and Richmond for II
aint;E " n rrann md Ratas ara n
%, a. dara,d,n, II
Tia nase 80 81 Ganroo ,t,or row;s