Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-02-13
THE SUPREME COURT
HEARING WASHINGTON COUNTY
CASES.
The Question of DisohsrginT = Laboror
Being Considered Another Chapter
in the Town Of Barre's Culvert
Case-Nfore Fences,

Montpelier, Feb. 6.-Supreme Court got
to work promptly to-day and took up the
case of Hugh Raycyoft VS.. Eugene NJ.
Tayntor This was an action of case to
recover damages caused by the defendant
having compelled one Libersant, who
worked for Mr.. Tayntor and for whom Mr..
Raycrof worked to discharge Mr.. Ray
croft The defendant owns a quarry at
Barre and employs Mr.. Lfbersant in the
capacity of boss and owing to the fact
that Mr.. Raycroft would not join the as
ISOLATION Mr.. Tayntor told Libersant he
could discharge Raycroft or go himself.
1T was in the early winter time and Mr..
Raycroft could not obtain labor elsewhere,
and with the exception of cutting q few
cords of wood for his own use remained
idle until spring He brought suit against
MIR. Tayntor claiming as damages the
amount he would have earned had he been
permitted to work during the winter and
at the March term Of Washington County
Court he was awarded a verdict of
$125.05.
The defendant excepted to the evidence,
claiming that an action did not lie as 1t
was on the defendants quarry, and the de-
PENDANT had a right to discharge Raycroft
and with some exceptions to the ruling
of the court the question for the Supreme
Court Is merely a question of law a. to the
Facts of the case constituting a ground of
action. Barney and Hoar and John w.
Gordon for the plaintiff. Joseph r. Lam
son for the defendant.
Town of Barre, appellant vs. George
jerry This was an action founded on the
statute which provides that If any one
maliciously stops up a drain or culvert in
the highway, he shall forfeit a penal sum
of not over $50. The jury returned YER
dict for the plaintiff to recover 81 and
costs. The defendant claims that the costs
cannot exceed s., but the County Court
grantcd certificate for full costs to
which the defendant excepted. John W.
Gordon for the plaintiff. John G.. Wing
for the defendant
Henry Holmes VS.. David l.. Fuller. This
was an action on the case for the defend
ant maliciously fencing up a right of way.
There has been considerable trouble in
regard to this matter Mr. Fuller first
suing Mr. Holmes for trespassing on the
grounds and getting a verdict in favor of
Mr.. Holmes, who then brought this suit
70 recover the $40 he was obliged TO pay
the trustees of the village by reason of a
highway being laid in this place on the
trial at the September term, 1895, of WASH
ington County Court the plaintiff recov-
cred a verdict for $500 and filed excep-
tione, claiming that as this was for three
weeks damages, he should have recovered
Tor the prior damage he had sustained
IN accordance with the above rate The
$40 above referred TO being for land dam
age 10 Mr.. Fuller, and the verdict in this
case establishing the fact that the land
belonged to Mr.. Holmes S. C. Shurtleff
appeared for the plaintiff and r. r. and
j. w. Gordon for the defendant
Annette Wiley. administrators VS.. He
Der and Clinton Thewing. This was an ac-
ton for trespass on the freehold, in that
the defendants had at one time purchased
some land near the plaintiffs farm and
claimed to have purchased the right of
way over the plaintiffs land, and contin-
ued to use 1t until this suit was brought
The trial was by court and the court
found for the plaintiff to recover 81 90.
to which the defendants excepted and
the defendants also excepted to the find
ing of facts filed by the court. The de-
fendanfs claim that when they purchased
the land they. by law, purchased every
thing necessary to its use and enjoyment,
while the plaintiff. on the other hand,
claims that they did not. and that other
parties had only used the way by permits
sion from Mr.. Wiley. S. c. Shurtleff for
the plaintiff and Frank ]. Martin for the
defendants.
Edwin *. Jones. appellant, VS.. estate of
j. w. Ellis. This was an action to recover
the value of shares purchased in the Stony
CITY Valley Land company, the plaintiff
claiming that they were worthless and
that the deceased defendant knew them
to be so when he sold them. The Sioux
city Valley Land company was a corpor-
auon organized under the laws of the
state of Maine. Its object was to de-
velop certain tract of land in Lynn, Ia.
stock company was formed and Jabez
w. Ellis was elected director among 9TH
ers. He sold the defendant several shares
IN the stock upon representing to him
that II was gilt edged stock, etc. he rem
resenting to Mr.. Jones that he knew that
1t was a safe investment. The question
in the County Court was whether the
words of Mr. Ellis amounted to warranty
OF the stock. Evidence was introduced by
the plaintiff tending to show that in fact
the company never had any valid title to
the property to which the defendant ex-
cepted. There was evidence tending TO
show the value of the property at pres
ent. Evidence was also introduced tend
ing to show that Mr.. Ellis represented
that others had made purchases of the
goods when, in fact they had not. At the
time Mr.. Jones purchased the so shares
for which he paid $1,000, he claims that all
the property they held was simply an OPP
ton on the land. Many dispositions were
taken at great expense, and the defend
ants secured the attendance of one per-
son from Sioux City to testify to the
value of the property at different times
The court excluded quite an amount of
testimony, to which the plaintiff eX-
cepted. The jury returned verdist for
the defendant and the following special
verdcts:
THAT the shares were of some value
when purchased.
2-That Mr.. Ellis did not warrant them