Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1896-05-14
VERMONT VS.. BRATTLEBORO.
state Seeks to Recover Excess Of Liquor
Profits.

Montpelier, May 13.-Cases In Supreme
Court are being argued with considera-
bile CELEBRITY The case of State of Vermont
vs. town of Brattleboro, plaintiff seeks
to recover S307.02 in excess of the ten per
cent profit allowed towns on gross sales
of liduor as ascertained in their annual
settlements. The construction of NO. "
acts of 1894 is desired. The law took erect
Feb 1, 1895, and defendant claims that to
give 1t the construction desired by PLAIN
tiff would give 1t retrospective ef1ect
and so cover period of time when IT was
illegal for towns to make profit in the
sales of lluuor The case comes from
Windham county. Joel G. Baker for state.
Waterman, Martin and iiitt for defend
ant.
G. NJ. Marsh vs.. G. F. Graves and Louis
r. Graves, administrators, from Ben
nngton county, is petition 10 enter an
appeal from Probate Court. The appel
liant did not get his appeal entered WITHIN
the q days after taken as required ny
section 2iSi, Vermont Statutes, which petit
toner claims was due 10 accident or MS
take and defendants to the fault OF ms
attorney. O. M Barber for plaintiff. W.
B sheldon for defendant
In George q. Smith, apt, vs. II, .. Cool
idge from Windham county, plaintilf
sought TO make the defendant responsible
for the debt Of T l.. Batchelder & Co, in
their deal The master found that on Dec.
o. 1859. there was due plaintiff $s.A9.
Plaintiff had sold Batchelder Il co" n
quantity of sugar and was 10 take pay
ment in candy Of which they were mnnV-
facturers Coolidge retired from the hrrn
notifying plaintiff that Batcheleer would
fiji orders, but who failed TO ill one given
in May 1889. The last one filled ny h'nl
being in April OF that year. Plaintiif
seeks to hold Coolidge as tho responsible
marty Service was not made on Batchelder
as he was out of the State at the time De-
fcndant raises the point that the contract
old not call for payment In r. oney Inc
| Judgment below was In favor OF p'ainuit
On the report A. IL. Cud"orlh auu !" ~
| Reed for plaintiff Waterman NarNH
and Hit, for defendant.
Leon Sanders by next friend VS.. Fred ~
Pierce was heard on a motion TO dismiss
/ for want of ilris''ic;;Hn, the case having
/ been brought oiiSt:;.lly in Windnan
/ County Court. the ad clamnum set pelhe
only 81. which defendant claims is fatal
but plaintiff Gains TO have been mis-
take and should have saen $500. The YER
dict bclow vas for plaintiff for sS.33. Wa
torman. Martin and Hit for plaintiff
Clark C. Fits for defendant.
Vermont Farm Machine company VS.
Francis Batchc'der & Co. OF Boston. Mass
Plaintiffs acting under written contrac
dated Nov. -. 1898 set up L. S. cream
separator in defendants separator station
at Plaintield. The contract for the entire
outfit furnished was $50, and provided
that the machine shoIld he operated II
every way in the same manner as usua
In the ordinary method followed in th'
course of separating each day. The ma
chine worked AN right at temperature
Of so or 80 degrees when defendants MAJ
reduced temperature to 70 or 72 degrees
did not work as well, and thercupon dc
fcndants returned machine 20 plaintiffs
refusing to pay for same. Plaintiffs. II
acknowledging receiving the machine bacl
notified defendants that II was subject Il
their order and expense for storase an'
afterwards brought this suit. Plaintiffs
evidence tended to show that at the tim
of contract the usual and ordinary way o
separating cream from mix was the high
er temperatures, but defendants call az
tention to the fact that the contract salt
that the separator "Fhall do COOL worl
as any other separator in the market.
Defendants ohtcined 4 verdict in Wind
ham County Court. l.. NJ. Read and Has
kins and Stoddard for plaintiff, Waterman
Martin and Hit and J. =. Lamson for de
PENDANTS.