The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-01-29
SUPREME COURT.


| NEW ENGLAND FIRE lNSURANCh OohPANY
v. @. g. LESTER AND w: ii. LhsIhh, APIS
An action in assumpsit from RUTLAND county,
where plaintiff obtained verdict and
damages of S100.S0. Judgment affirmed by
agreement.
s. B. FARwELL RECEIVER OF FIRST Ma.
TIoNAL BANK OF DOWNS KANSAS, v. CLARK
| SMITH action in special and general
assumpsit. Judgment for plaintiff for $50
and interest from June 8, 1895, in Rutland
| County Court affirmed, without costs in this
court.
FRED f. Tuck v. NATHANIEL f. PAGE AND
OLIVE K. PAGE.-An action on the case for
enticiug plaintiffs wife, in which suit both
! OF defendants obtained verdict in Rutland
County Court, and the death of Nathaniel
Page has been suggested on the docket.
| The judgment was affirmed
! MARILLA A. BROWN v. WILLIAM II.
BROWN Petitioner libel for divorce was
dismissed in Rutland County Court, to
which exceptions were filed. Her attorney,
| O. l.. Howe, asked leave to amend by adding
the charge of desertion. On account Of his re-
quest judgment was reversed pro forma
and cause remanded.
| GEORGE MOORE, APEE., WILLIAM PELKEY,
APT.-An action in ejectment, from Frank
lin county, where plaintiff obtained judy
ment for the premises and $37 80. BY
agreement of counsel judgment was af-
frmed without argument III. K. Wheeler
and Wilson & Hall for plaintiff; harrington
| & Post for defendant.
STATE v. FRANK MoRRILL.-Responde
| was convicted in Orleans County Court of
| grand larceny and sentenced to three years
| imprisonment in the State Prison at Wind
sor. The Supreme Court rendered judg-
ment that there was no error in the proceed
ings of the court below. Respondent takes
nothing by his exceptions aad was re-
manded to the State Prison to serve his sen.
tence.
G,rr
franklin county, where respondent was
convicted Of an intent to commit rape upon
| Bessie Pomeroy, a girl nine years old, in the
cellar of a cash store in ST. Adams village,
alleged to have occurred October 4, 1895. A
motion in arrest of Judgment was made on
the ground that the evidence did not war;
rant the verdict, which is the question here
StaJe's Attorney 1. N. Chase for state; II.
| NJ Mott for respondent.
WILLIAM 81. RUao, EFT Tx. v. w. P.
DAVIS AND THEoPBILE ARCBAMBAULT.-Pe-
ttion for a mandamus to compel ". P.
Davis, clerk of franklin County Court. to
make an entry in the record of the amount
Of the damages in prior suit OF Rugg, ct
TX. v. Archambault, in which plaintiffs OBJ
tanned judgment, but in which the record
shows no assessment of damages, and the
clerk has no recollection OF ever having
made any. Fl. G. Adams for petitioners
harrington & Post for defendants.
HENRY STANLEY, APT, v. 8. s. TURNER.
| APEE.-An action in general assumpsit,
with count for rent, use and occupation.
Judgment was given in franklin County
Court on the referees report in favor of the
plaintiff for SLABS. Both sides have excep.
tions There are some questions as TO de-
fendants right to an Offset. The case had
its origin from the dealings of the parties in
the East Berkshire cheese factory. where
defendant manufactured cheese for plain
tiff. Rustedt & Locklin for plaintiff; A. K.
Brown for defendant.
F.W MITCHELL, ADMIR-, " ENGLR AND
JOSEPH PREMoNT.-A space of land forty
by twenty feet, located in Richford village,
bet the shoe-shop and Union block, is
claimed by both parties. Plaintiff claims
title, both by deed and adverse possession.
The action was brought ia ejectment, plain
tiff obtaining in county court Judgment to
recover the possession of the premises and
$14 damages, to which defendant excepted.
Hogan & Royce and A. X. Brown for
plaintiff; Rusted & Locklin and Farr-
ington & Post for defendant.
M. MASON, f. a. DEwART, MRS. B. ID.
HoYT EFT AL. v. Town OF ST.. ALBANs AND
VILLAGE OF ST. ALBANs.-A petition for a
street to be laid out in the village of st. AL
bans, originally made to the trustees OF that
village. In county court it was ordered, on
the report of the commissioners, that the
highway be established, worked and opened
by the town of ST. Adams, to which the
town excepted. There seems to be no Ques-
ton but that the street will be laid, the con-
test being as to whether it will be done by
the town or village. Harrington & Post for
Town of ST. Albans Hogan & Royce for
Village.
CITY OF RUTLAND v. Town OF PROCTOR
A pauper case, the action being in assump-
sit to recover S17s.S3 which plaintiff clai ns
for board, care and burial expense of An
thony Clarke also SS6.95 expended in the
care of a Mrs. Rafferty, and her family.
The case arises from the incorporation OF
the towns of Proctor and West Rutland, in
| 1886, and the incorporation of the city OF
Rutland, in 1892. The paupers resided in
the limits of Proctor for three consecutive
incorporated. Joel g. Baker and G. L.
Howe for plaintiff Butler & Moloney and
f. G. Partridge for defendant.
FRED E. MASCOT V. GRANITE STATE FIRE
INSURANCE CoMPANY.-This is an action to
recover on policy of fire insurance, dated
April 2S, 1893, for the term OF one year. The
property insured was carriage painter =
shop in Casteton, destroyed by fire April
s. 1894 the fire originating FIR ON overturning
a kettle containing benzine. The defendant
claims that keeping benzine was against the
condition of the policy and made it void
while plaintiff contends that benzine is in-
sured, as it is an article usually kept in a
shop of that kind. A verdict was directed
for defendant in county court W. FL. Pres
ton for plaintiff; Joel G. Baker for defend.
ant.
EDWARD SHUM v. G. A. CLAGHoRN,-Re
plevin for one cream. colored mare. Plant.
iff, by warranty deed, May g. 1893, conveyed
his farm and personal property in Walling
ford to his son Joseph, with a condition at
tached for the support of himself and wife
On February IL, 1895, Joseph mortgaged
the mare in question to defendant Defend
ant subsequently took the mare on his
mortgage and was about TO foreclose when
this suit was brought. Defendant obtained
judgment for return of property taken and
one cent damages in county court. Plant
if claims that the condition of his deed to his
son was not fulfilled. Butler & Moloney
for plaintiff; G. l.. Howe for defendant.
STATE v. ALBERT EMERY AND RICHARI
PENo.-The premises of respondents, in 81
Adams, were searched on a warrant De
cember 10, 1894, and articles Of clothing
bedding aud table linen were found, belong
ing to various residents OF st, Adams, which
had been taken while exposed for drying
Respondents were convicted In county
court AS they have each served q sentence
of six months In the House OF Correction or
their plea of guilty for the larceny of a por