Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-01-30
Is THE SENTENCE VALID ?
S HOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO WORK
HOUSE INSTEAD OF PRISON.
supreme Court Asked to Give the Grim
inal His Liberty on Tint Accounted
Breach of Promise Suit ard Many
Othor Cases Heard.


Breach of Promise Suit ard Many
Othor Cases Heard.
Montpelier, Jan. 2S.-The court this MORN
ing took up the Caledonia county cases.
Phiomela Flint ct al, APPELLANTS, VS.. es-
tate of Mary Flint, executrix, of Brainard
Flints estate. This was n contested will
case and was appealed from the Probate
Court to the County Court at the June
term, 1894. At the June term 1885, a mo-
tion of dismiss the action was filed by the
defendant, and also a motion by the plain
tiff for the administrator to enter his
appearance to prosecute the suit. The
motion to dismiss the suit was overruled
and George B. Davis was allowed TO enter
as administrators DE bonis non," which,
when translated means that Mr.. Davis
succeeded the former administrator of the
estate. The trial was by court and the
plaintiff was awarded a verdict of s26O3 so
with interest from March 1. 1892, and
George f.. Eastman, the executor of Mary
Flnts' estates, was ordered to pay the
above sum out of the assets of the estate.
To this the defendant excepted and also to
the finding of facts by the court, which
were filed July 20, 1895. The contention
in the Supreme Court Is that the estate,
or this particular parcel had been once
administered and that the new adminis-
traitor had no authority by our statute,
over that which the former administrator
had reduced to his possession with view
of distribution and that for this reason
the court did not have authority to issue
the orders commanding the payment of
the money. Bates and May appear for the
plaintiff and Montgomery and Stafford
for the defendant.
Montpelier, Jan. 29.-In re Charles Har-
ris This respondent was convicted at
the December term OF Caledonia County
Court of open and gross lewdness and
sentenced to the State prison for term
of two years and nine months. from which
he was taken on q writ of habeas corpus
on the ground that under sections 5066 and
5110 of the Vermont Statutes he should
have been sentenced to the House OF
Correction The punishment for the above
crime being by Imprisonment not exceed
ing three years" The Statute also pro-
viding that where the imprisonment is in
State prison is shall be 80 stated, but if
not so stated II shall be in the House of
Correction. 1t is evident that the sem
tence was an error and the rclator claims
his discharge on that ground. The states
attirney claiming that as he did not OBJ
ject to the sentence at the time it was
passed, he was stopped from so doing now.
Dunnett and Slack for the relator and
States Attorney w. II. Taylor for the
State.
! in re Martin Diggens' estate, w. II. Cobb
| administrator; Fl. s. Bowen, claimant,
appellant This was the first case from
Windsor county, and was an appeal from
the commissioners. In the County Court
the plaintiff recovered judgment for 1920 II
on the referees report. The question for
the Supreme Court being the admissible
ity of evidence to establish n note for
$780, signed by Martin Diggens but which
the administrator claims was a forgery,
"a n N r1 Tn n ma a,rf,ll. l.lt ,f
on a 5000 note. Gilbert A. Davis and Albee
and Finn for the administrator and ]. c.
Enright and w. w. Stickney for the ap-
pcllant.
James NJ. Boutwell, ct al. VS.. William
Mari ct al. This was a motion for a
continuance of Washington county case.
1t was an action brought against the
Granite Manufacturers association for
! injuries to the plaintiffs business in which
the plaintiff recovered a judgment for
Sl22l66 The defendants attorney, G. a.
/ Prouty. moved for the continuance on
the ground that the plaintiff, Boutwell,,
he'd subsequently Joined the association.
Messrs Huse and Lord, attorneys for the
plaintiff admitted that Mr. Boutwell, had
Joined the association but contested that
as to the remaining three plaintiffs the
suit should not be continued unless terms
were imposed. The court continued the
case and imposed terms of s25 against the
defendants.
Abble NJ. Foster VS. Henry II. Hanchett
and White River Savings bank, trustee
Not every day does the Supreme Court
have to deal with a case so full of true life
as 1t is seen by those who once would
wed but since have for numerous reasons
changed their minds, and now declare
their intentions Of remaining separate as
far as themselves are concerned. Such
then is the reason for the vast amount of
public interest excited when a breach of
promise" suit 10 brought before our tri-
bunals. 1t is only when the fair woman
comes with broken heart and shattered
! life and pleads for pecunlary vengeance
that our 1urles are apt to grant the relief
prayed for no matter what may be the
facts on the other side 1t seems that the
defendant promised to marry the plaintiff
after he had inquired in regard to her
character, ETC.. she telling him that there
wasn't anything in her past life of which
she was ashamed" His subsequent in
quiries developed the fact that her past
career in some respects had not been of
the most desirable nature. and for this
reason he broke the engagement If so 1t
may be termined. She brought suit and
recovered in the County Court verdict
of $4375 damages and costs The defendant
did not plead his defence but offered the
evidence in regard to her character under
the general issue. The court did not
charge that If her character was proved to
be unchaste than the defendant was en-
titled to verdict and upon the defend
ants exceptions to the charge of the court
the case comes to the Supreme Court.
Tarbell, Dillingham;. Huse and Rowland
and Wilson for the plaintiff. Hunton and
Stickney Harvey and johnson for the de-
fendant. Samuel L. Pingree for the trus-
tee.