The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-02-05
SUPREME COURT.
SUMMARY OF CASES CONSIDERED
DURING THE PAST WEEK.

Town OF SOUTH BURLIsoroN v. TOWN OF
action in assuinpsit from
county, where pialnti1 opIalneu
a Judgment of S618 aud costs. Judgment
aft rmed.
STATE ". FRANK SwEENY.-In Washing
ton County Court, September term. 1895.
was found guilty OF larceny and
fned 500, and costs taxed at S59.03 Excep-
tons we're waived and fine aud costs paid.
STATE v. JAMES DALEY, APT Respond
emf was convicted at the September term
of Chittenden County Court OF keeping in
toxicating LIQUOR, with intent to sell, at the
Donnelly Hotel in Burlington, and was
fined 800, and costs of S37.07. Exceptions
waived. Judgment and sentence ath rmed.
No costs in this court. Mittimus issued.
STATE " INTOXICATING LIoUoR.-James
Daley is claimant, and is the respondent in
the prior case. In trial by court the
lager beer and two bottles containing IL,
mentioned in copies Of appeal, was adjudged
forfeited, condemned and ordered to be de-
stroyed. Exceptions waived and Judgment
affirmed.
STATE v JAMES P. SULLIVAN.
emf was convicted in franklin County
Court of an assault with an intent to COM
init rape. Judgment was rendered Wednes'
day afternoon that there was no error In
the court below and respondent takes moth
ing by his exceptions. His counsel ID. M.
Mott, asked that light sentence be given
him. He was sentenced for one year in the
House OF Correction and to pay costs OF
prosecution.
ADoLPH HATTIE v. K. E. DAVIS, GUARD
IAN OF w H. HARE.-This case is named
on the docket as in Islander. but in Chitten-
den County Court 1t was held to be an action
of malicious prosecution, and verdict, on
motion, was directed for defendant on the
ground that there was no evidence OF
malice. Plaintiff excepted. Submitted on
briefs. Harrington & Post and A. " Spal-
ding for plaintiff; Charles L. Barney and
Seneca Haselton for defendant.
Town OF GRAND ISLE v. Towns OF MIL
TON AND Contamination Chittenden
county. In 1886 the court, on recommends
ton Of missioners, established high
way in Milton and Colchester and bridge
spanning the Lamolle river, and APP
portioned the expense and maintaining
among the towns of South Hero, Colches-
ter, Grand Isle and Milton. As no portion
of the highway and bridge is in Grand Isle,
and as $40 has been expended in maintain
ing and repairs during the last year, petit
toner now seeks relief from paying It's
twenty eight per cent of the burden. w.
FL. Bliss for Grand Isle; A. G. Whittemore
for Milton HI. #. Wocott for Colchester.
In RE HANNAH B. PIERCE's ESTATE, BUR.
TON B. PIERCE, ADMINISTRATORS OF ESTATE
OF SAMUEL b. PIERCE, GUARDIAN, CLAIMANT,
Don G. POLLARD, ADMINISTRATORS, APT
| This case is from Windsor county and is an
| appeal from probate court. Samuel b
| Pierce on May 4, 1887, was appointed guard
ian of his mother, Hannah B. who was in
sane She died in June, 1892 Pierce
| guardian, decided some real estate to his
sister, who decided it back to him. and was
then in effect mortgaged to G.. A. Davis fol
! 81 900. Pierce, guardian, died January D
| The ground taken by the appellant is thai
| the deeds are void and that the title il
vested in the estate of Hannah B. Pierce
G. A. Davis for CLAIMANT w. w. Stickney
and w. e. Johnson for appellant.
ABBIE M. FOSTER v. HENRY FL. HAN
CHKTT, WHITE RIVER SAVINGS BANK, TRUs
TEE This action was brought in assumpsi
lot the breach of marriage promise Plant
| iff resides in South Royaltou, and at the Ma.
term, 1895, OF Windsor County Court, oh
tanned Judgment for S4,375 damages ant
costs. Defendant resides at White Rive
junction. He claims that the marriage
contract was conditional, while plaintiff
claims that it was absolute. During tn
trial defendant claimed that he could show
in defence, that plaintiff was OF a loose ant
immodest character. The court instructed
the jury that this evidence was admitted
not as defence to the action, but in mitiga
ton of damages, to which charge defendan
ham, Huse & Rowland and j. j. Wilson TO
plaintiff; Hunton & Stickney and w.
johnson for defendant
STATE v. EFFIE Cox, ALIAS EFF
WHALEN, AND ROSE FoURNIER The Re
spondents were jointly indicted for tn
murder Of Alfred Fourier, ere convicte
in Chittenden County Court of manslaugf
ter and were each sentenced to INVENT
years hard labor in State Prison. The ev
dence at the trial tended to show that ia
death, which occurred at Burlington on U,
tober IA, 1893, was caused by tartar emeti
poison which contained anthony, the II
spondent, Whalen, purchasing the same 8
drug store. The trial in county court OF
cupied forty-one days. The responder
Rose Fournier, now seeks new trial on ii
ground that the trial was joint one an
that she had demanded separate tria
She has also some exceptions to the admi
sion Of certain evidence. She is the wldo
of the aforesaid Alfred. States Attorne
r. e. Brown for the state; Charles L. Ba
ney for respondent, Whalen.
STATE v. G. o TAYLOR, JAMES EDwAR
j. O'DoNALD AND HENRY BALLARD.-Il
respondents, Taylor and O'Donald, were co
victed in Windsor County Court of an a
sault with intent to kill and murder, IA
Tinkham, the constable of Rochester, al
his three assistants, two Of three miles fro
Rochester, November 20, 1894, who were q
tempting to arrest the respondents becau
suspected OF having been participants III
post-office robbery committed at Ilcono
roga, n. Y, the night previous, anu we
\ each sentenced to twenty. five years in Sta
Prison The other two respondents we
surrender ed to the United States autho
, ties. The court charged that Tinkham h
the right to make the arrest without WI
rant. The respondents claim is that, VIII
Tinkham W AZ asked as to his authority,
showed his revolver and said that 1t "
all the authority he had or needed, and
seek to justify their own use OF revolve
The states testimony, however, tended
show that Tinkham stated to them that
was acting by the authority of the state
Vermont The respondents also have
exception that the court, after being
quested, omitted to charge the jury that
der the indictment they might be convict
for a lesser offence than charged. The ST
made a point that the asportation OF
ar postage. stamps which were found in
70 possession OF respondents constitute
of felony and justified the arrest. The CT
In came on for al gument Thursday afterno
II exceptions are sustained it will proba