Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-02-13
to be worth $40 nor share.

|
The plaintiff excepted to several por-
tons of the charge and to the special
verdicts. s. c. Shurtleff for the plaintiff,
Dillingham;, Huse and Rowland for the
defendants.
Hiram Wells, administrator, VS.. Henry
Atkins. This was a debt on Judgment
| The case was heard by the court and
judgment rendered for the plaintiff to re-
cover $773.50. Exceptions were filed by the
defendant. The question for the Supreme
| Court being whether the County Court
| could render valid judgment while in
solvency proceedings were pending and be-
fore the debtors discharge Joseph p.
Lamson for the plaintiff, George w. Wing
for the defendant.
| Russell Sawyer VS.. Roswell Child. This
was an action of assumpsit on a note
given for S32O.25; on condition that IL the
| plaintin in former suit maintained his
action, the note should be valid, otherwise
void. The plaintiff did maintain the suit,
which was chancery proceeding. but a
decree was never drawn and when the oral
evidence Of the clerk was offered to show
that in fact decree was awarded to the
plaintiff, the defendant excepted, but the
court pro forma" admitted the testimony
| OF the clerk and the docket entries of the
case, 10 which ruling the defendant also
excepted. The jury returned a verdict for
| the plaintiff to recover s555.63 i. G. Shurt-
left and T. j. Deavtt for the plaintiff,
Dillingham;, Huse and Howland for the
| defendant
Montpelier, Feb. 1.-THE court on Thurs
day afternoon took up the case of town
school district of Barre VS.. b. b. Cook and
trustee. This was an action of general as
sumpsit brought against Mr.. Cook to re-
cover the amount of funds Mr.. Cook held
as treasurer of the former school district
before the town system went into effect
AT the request of several of the members
of the old district, and at the disapprovai
of some. Mr.. Cook distributed the amount
of funds in his hands among the taxpay-
ers of the district. The trial was by court
at the September term, 1895. The court
after hearing the evidence concluded that
Mr.. Cook could not be held, and rendered
judgment for the defendant to recover his
costs, to which the plaintiff excepted and
now In supreme Court is trying to main
tain his former position. John w. Gordon
for the plaintiff. S. C. Shurtleff for the de-
PENDANT.
Forsyth and Ingram VS.. Mann Brothers
This was the last case from Washington
county. The plaintiff contracted with the
| defendants, who were quarrymen and
manufacturers of granite at Barre to
manufacture monument to be erected at
| Gettysburg by the State of Minnesota
specifying the kinds and quality of the
material to be used in its construction, and
the time it was to be completed. The de-
PENDANTS did not build the monument as
stipulated in the contract, and the plain
tiffs were obliged to manufacture ii them
selves In the winter timo at a greater ex-
pense than 1t would otherwise have cost
and the suit to recover damages Is the re-
suit. The trial was by court, and the
plaintiffs were awarded a verdict of $l014 49,
The defendants excepted to the ruling of
the court claiming the contract to be
within the statute of frauds and therefore
not enforceable against the defendants.
The defendants also objected to the evil
dence on the ground that 1t was at vari-
ance with the contract. The principles in
lNolved are quite important and the argu-
ments were accordingly lengthy. William
A. Lord and Dillingham;, Huse and How
land for the plaintiff. George W. Wing
and John w. Gordon for the defendants.
The court then took up the cases that
had been set at the heel of the docket, the
first of which was from Franklin county,
and was State of Vermont vs. George
Gibbs and Ida Brink. The respondents
were jointly indicted for the crime of
adultery the act alleged being committed
on the 9Th day of June, 1895. The evidence
tended to show at the September term of
Franklin County Court that the respond
ents had gone TO household and repre-
scented themselves to be husband and wife,
and that they occupied the same room to-
gether. The evidence tended to show that
the respondent Gibbs was a married man,
but to this evidence the respondents OBJ
jected on the ground of it's not being suf-
ficient evidence to establish the marriage,
1t being only an imperfect copy of the GER
| ticate. without lawfully alleging that
anything was done, or when or where
1t was done The court pro forma" adj
mitted the paper under the respondent
objection and exception. The respondents
filed a request for charge, which the
court refused. and to which the respond
ents excepted. The jury returned a YER
dict of guilty as to both respondents. The
respondent Gibbs furnished bail in the
sum of $500 and the respondent Brink in
the sum OF 5000 for their appearance at the
Supreme Court. States Attorney Isaac
n. Chase for the State; C. G.. Austin for
the respondents.
Montpelier, Feb. 1.-THE court resumed
! It's business this morning and took up
the case of State VS.. Lydia A. Stevenson
The respondent Is charged with having
procured miscarriage upon the body OF
Miss Estelle Houghton at st. Adams some
time ago At the trial in the County Court
the respondent was convicted and upon
exceptions being filed execution was stayed
and the case passed to the Supreme Court
The respondent brings the case to the
Supreme Court upon the following ques
tions The respondent demurred to the
Indictment claiming that 1t did not al
lege the elements of a crime. The cour
overruled the demurrer to which the re.
spondent excepted, The respondent moved
the court to direct verdict of acquitta
on the ground that there was not suf.
ficient evidence to warrant q conviction
which motion was denied and to which
the respondent excepted, The respondent
contended that If a miscarriage had beer
produced 1t was before the girl came tc
the house and by other persons than her,
self and that it was the duty of the State
to show that the respondent was the one
who committed the offence. The respon
dent also excepted to the exclusion OF
some evidence from B. C. Hall, who made
the investigations for the State, the re.
spondent claiming that evidence tending
to implcate others with the crime should
have been submitted by the court The
| TeSnOnlpnt ba ax,;-