The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-07-17
SUPREME COURT.
Lot of Reversed JudgemeMts-TOwn
Wins Its Liquor Agency Case-Anoth
er Hug Over the Sewer Assessme nts.

wins It's Liquor agency thse-Ahoth-
er Hug Over the sewer Assessments.
The Supreme Court met at Mont
pelier last week Thursday and an
nounced its decisions in number of
cases heard in the May term and pre-
viously.
In the liquor agency case of state
against the town of Brattleboro the
court reversed the judgment of the
county court and held that the law
compelling the payment of agency
profits above 10 per cent. couldn't be
retroactive. So Brattleboro will not
have to part with any Of her rum
profit, except to pay lawyers fees.
inasinuch as it was fixed SO that there
wouldn't be any more above 10 per
cent. Baker for state. Waterman.
Martin Il Hit for town
In Smith VS.. Coolidge the judgement
of the county court on the auditors
report in favor Of defenant is reversed
and judgment ordered for plaintiff.
Cudworth a. Read for plaintiff. Water
man, Martin & Hit for defendant.
In Cayanaugh VS.. Savings bank, over
deposits made in another name but
which plaintiff claimed to belong to
her, and whore the county court or
dered verdict for defendant the iudg
ment is reversed and the case remand
ed to county court for retrial Has
kins 4 Stoddard for plaintiff, Water
man, Martin & Hit for defendant.
In Sanders VS.. Pierce the court sus
tain the motion ia quash. curious
poiut was involved here. In the
printed form of the writ, bought at
Montpelier, at one place the words
lone hundred were omitted, and as
the suit was for Sl05 and the five
only written in. the defen liant in the
county court raised the point of want
of jurisdiction-or that the suit was
for less than $50. The county court
held that this pont was not raised 10
time, but the supreme court holds
that it was Waterman. Martin IL Hit
for plaintiff. Fits. Haskins and
Stoddard for defendant.
+. c. Crosby eft ais VS.. village of Brat
tleboro, over sewer assessment. went |
up on motion to dismiss on the |
ground that there was no bonds. The |
county court overruled the motion |
and the ruling is sustained and the |
ease now goes to commissioners for |
hearing. Waterman. Martin Hit |
for petitioners. Fits for village.
In Vermont Farm Machine Co. vs..
Francis Batchelder, the separator |
case. which took two or three weeks |
for trial last fall. the judgment for
defendant is affirmed. Read and Has
sins and Stoddard for plaintiff. Lamson
,nu Waterman, Martin q Hit for
defendant.
Among other decisions the petition
or a new trial from Rutland county
If the case of the Fall Mountain Pa
Der company against Edward II,
1eno was dismissed with costs
judgement was affirmed in the case
II Edward Shum against c. A. Clag-
,orn: in the case of the state against
Clinton L. Sherwood. where the re-
pondent was convicted in the Rut-
and County court of bigamy, Judge
nent was reversed. the verdict set
side and the case remanded for a new
rial: judgement was affirmed in the
ase of Pullman & Adams against Eos
er 4 Jauuith. an action in trespass
rom Rutland county. where the
laintiffs obtained a verdict and
udgtment.
D.-.a., :, ;,,araSt.l in tho announce |