The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-05-20
VERMONT SUPREME COURT.
SUMMARY or CASES CONSIDERED
DURING THE PAST WEEK.

ALoSzo sTARKEY " FRED NJ. WAITE
This was case in audita guerrilla, from
Windham county, and was continued
CALVIN s. ALBEE V. RUTLAND STREET
RAILWAY CoMPANY.-An action in which
trespass and trover were joined, from Rut-
land county, where a verdict was directed
for defendant. judgment was affirmed
Friday afternoon. ID. w. Love Tor plant
if: Butler Il Maloney for defendant.
GEORGE NJ. MARSH v. GEORGE f. GRAVES
AND LOUIS Il. GRAVES, ADMINISTRATORS,
from Bennington county.-A petition to en-
ter an appeal from probate court on the
ground OF accident or mistake, the appel
liant not entering his appeal within the
twenty-one days required by section 25o6
Of the Vermont Statutes. o. NJ Barber for
petitioner; W. b. Sheldon for defendant.
LEoN SANDERS BY NEXT FRIEND v. FRED
o. PIERCE, from Windham county.-This
case was heard on motion to dismiss for
want of jurisd ction, as the ad damnum was
only So, and the action was originally
brought in county court Plaintiff claims
that it was mistake and that the ad
damnum should have been $500. Plaintiff
obtained a verdict for 1888. Waterman,
Martin & Hit for plaintiff; Clark @. Fits
for defendant.
FULLAM & ADAMS " FOSTER & JAQUETH
from Rutland county.-This is an action in
trespass founded on Section 1906 of Re-
vised Laws, to recover of defendant treble
damages for cutting wood, timber and trees
standing and growing on land claimed by
plaintiff in Mount Holly. The ownership
of the land in dispute comprises about
twenty-five acres. The verdict returned by
the jury gave the plaintiff about 800
damages. Defendant exec pied to the charge
of the court. w. W. Stickney for plaintiff
Joel O. Baker and f. l.. Howe for defendat.
II. d. LINDSAY, ADMINISTRATOR OF PEI
KEY ESTATE, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RILwAY,
from Orleans county.-Both parties have
exceptions. This suit is brought for the
benefit of Edmond and Rose Peikey, pa
rents of Alleien Pelkey, girl less than two
years old, who was killed July 2, 1894, by
being run over by an engine at Newport
used and operated by defendants. Plaintiff
claimed to recover on the ground of defend
court directed a verdict for defendant.
Cook & Redmond for plaintiff; W. d.
Crane and Bates & May for defendant
STATE OF VERMONT v. Town OF BRATTLE-
BoRo.-No. II, Acts of 1894, which took eff
feet February /, 1895, requires that towns
shall turn over to the state profits on sale of
liquors in excess OF ten per cent profit on
gross sales ascertained on making their an
nual settlement to have been made the
year preceding. In the year ending Janu.
airy 81 1895, Br2tti6Doro had an excess of
profits 81 S3O7 OF which it claims it ought not
to be required to pay, as TODD 80 would give
the statute a retrospective effect. From
windham county Joel c. Baker for state
Waterman, Martin & Hit for defendant
EDWARD G. CROSBY EFT AL, APPELLANTS,
v. VILLAGE OF BRATTLEBoRo.-Plain
are the joint owners of Crosby and Har-
mony blocks, in the village Of Brattleboro.
1t appears that in 1895 the bailiffs of the
village disconnected plaintiffs private
sewer system from said block and connected
it with new system constructed by them,
and assessed petitioners for Crosby prop
erty $126.25 and Harmony property S11.26
as their share of expense for benefit. De-
PENDANTS motion in Windham County
Court to dismiss on ground that no bond
was filed with the clerk when the petition
and appeal were filed for payment of assess
ment as finally ordered as required by No.
ITO, Acts of 1894, was overruled. Petition
ers' contend that under the village charter
1872 no bond is required. Waterman
Martin & Hit for petitioners; Clark G.
Fits for defendant.
GEORGE G. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. FL. o.
COOLIDGE, from Windham cOunty.-Gen.
eral assumpsit to recover balance on an
open account Plaintiff seeks to hold Cool
idge responsible for amount due for sugar
sold f. Batchelder & Co. in 1888, which by
contract was payable in candy, of which
Batchelder * Co. were manufacturers.
Coolidge contemplated retiring from the
firm and notified plaintiff that Batchelder
would succeed to the business and would
fill the orders. The orders were not filed
after April, 1889. Coolidge is the RESPONSE
BILE party and service was not made on
Batchelder as he was out of the state at the
time Defendant raises the question that
the contract does not call for payment in
money. The amount found due by the
master December "a, 1889, the date when
the last credit was applied, was $3.50 A.
E. Cudworth and L. NJ. Read for plaintiff;
Waterman, Martin & Hit for defendant.
GKoRGE ALGER v. LEWIS MORRILL,, AP-
PELLANT, an action in assumpsit from Or
leans county. - The plaintiff obtained a
judgment in justice court of S700S and
costs, from which defendant appealed.
Tender OF S32 was made before the justice
trial and paid to the justice in court, and by
him delivered to the clerk of the county
court. Plaintiff recovered in county court
1882 and costs. Defendant conceded hav-
ing taken $3.50 pounds OF hay from plant
ifs farm and barn in Irasburg. Three
loads were weighed in Newport and one in
Coventry. The contract of sale was made
in February or March, 1893, the first load at
So per ton and, the balance at $40. Plain
tiff was permittedsto show at trial in county
court the measurements OF space occupied
by hay to show that defendant did not ac-
count for all the hay which he drew away,
to which evidence defendant excepted,
John d. Redmond argued the case for
plaintiff; John Young and Theophilus
Grout for defendant.
BRIDGET KAvANAGH V. VERMONT SAY
INGs BANK, from Windham county -
Plaintiffs evidence tended to show that on
January g. 1882 she had on deposit in the
defendant bank 50, 1876 in her own name.
On that day she deposited in said bank
$500 in the name of her niece. Mary KAY
anagh, and afterwards deposited S610 more
in the name Of Mary the book being kept
in control of plaintiff. The book kept in
the bank on the first $500 deposit purported
to be signed by Mary Kavanagh, and on
July 10, 1886, $40 was withdrawn by Mary
on presentation by her of the book, was re-.
ceipted for by Mary and was charged upon
the deposit book. Plaintiff cannot write, but
signs her name with q cross. In the fall OF
1892 plaintiff desired to withdraw some
money from the deposit in Mary's name
and requested Mary to sign a transfer OF
the account to her, who declined to do so,
whereupon plaintiff demanded payment OF
the bank, which refused payment, as the
deposit was in the name of Mary. The
court below directed verdict for defend
ant. Haskins & Stoddard for plaintiff
Waterman, Martin & Hit for defendant.
VERMONT FARM MACHINE COMPANY v.
Tn ~ 10 nf ROatnu