Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-02-06
Hoodsc D;11e act hsrmoniousiy With
tAuOA . ITO Hoods Sarsaparilla- SO.
SULLIVAN AND DALEY,
Must Serve Terms In the House Of Correc.
tion-Other Supreme Court Cases.


Montpelier, Jan. 30.--The first case be-
fore the Supreme Court this morning
was State VS.. John p. Sullivan. Informa-
ton charging the respondent with assault
with intent to commit rape. The court
after hearing the respective attorneys ad-
judged that the respondent take nothing
by this exception and passed upon him a
sentence of one year in the House of Cor
rcction. Isaac NJ Chase appeared for
the State and II. M. Mott for the respond
emit.
In re Hannah B. Pierces' estate, Burton
B. Pierce, administrator of estate of Sam
uel b. Pierce, guardian, claimant, Don c.
Pollard, administrator, appellant This Is
an appeal from the Probate Court of
Windsor county In the County Court the
report of the commissioner was filed and
excepted to by the claimant. after which
supplemental report was filed to which
the claimant excepted. On August %, 1895,
court made an order that the commission
er might take additional evidence in re-
gard to the first item of S272 and might
amend his report, and also report the
appellee's exceptions to his report with
such questions of costs as the appellee
claimed. The court "proforma" overruled
the appellee's exceptions and "proforma"
and without hearing rendered judgment
for the appellant to recover s916s5 dam
ages and interest TO which ruling of the
court the appellee excepted and the above
questions together with some questions in
regard to the admission of evidence from
the questions for the Supreme Court. Gill
bert A. Davis appeared for the claimant.
Stickney and Stickney and Johnson for
the appellant.
State VS.. James Daley, apt. This case Is
from Chittenden county. The respondent
was convicted in the County Court of keep
Ing Intoxicating liquors with intent to sell
mad 81 - n
costs, and to be confined in the House of
Correction for the term of three months.
Upon the respondents exceptions the SEN
tence was respited and stayed and bail
fixed at $500 which the respondent fur
nished. But owing to some reasons and In
particular the greatest reason was prob
ably that his attorney, II M. Alexander
met with Ill luck at the Supreme Court
he waived his exceptions and the sentence
Of the County Court was affirmed. Mr.
Daley was brought here Thursday morn
ing by Sheriff Thomas II. Reeves of Bur-
lington, who left with him at 1915 a. M,
with mittimus to the House OF Correc-
ton for the term Of over 400 days.
Also there was a procedure for the
condemnation OF the liquor standing in
the Supreme Court upon the respondents
exceptions. The liquor was two bottles
Of lager beer which the County Court
ordered destroyed and that the respondent
pay cost of proceeding This judgment
was also affirmed upon the respondent
waving his exceptions.
State VS.. G. o. Taylor, James Edward.
j. O'Donald and Henry Ballard. The in
dictment charged the respondents with
an assault with intent to kill. The re-
spondents, Edward and Ballard, were
turned over to the United States authori-
ties and at the May term. 1895, of Windsor
County Court the respondents, Taylor and
O'Donald, were convicted of the assault
as charged In the indictment, and sem
fenced to % years in the State prison
The people of Vermont are already well
acquainted with the affair in question. The
assault took place on the highway near
Rochester on the 28th day of November
1926. 1t was committed by firing revolt
vers at n posse of officers who were trying
to arrest the party for an alleged burglary
of the postoffico at Ticonderoga. N Y. 1t
appears that the officers did not have
papers. but had been notified to arrest
the parties, by telephone and telegraph
The respondents were in a team when
overtaken by the officer and his party.
They requested the officer to show his
he took out his revolver and re-
piled that that was all the papers neces-
airy, whereupon the firing commenced.
The contention in the Supreme Court Is
that as the offense was committed in
the State of New York the officer did not
have the right to make an arrest without
papers, That the respondents had n right
to regard 1t as an assault and repel 1t by
necessary force which together with some
exceptions to the charge of the court
forms the ground of the respondents case
at the Supreme Court. States Attorney
Joseph Enright and w. w. Stickney were
assigned for the State and Johnson was
assigned for the respondents.