The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-01-17
The supreme Court Cases from This
COmnty-Opp0sitiOn TO the New RMles.

The January term OF the supreme cour
opened at Montpelier TUESDAY.
The first ease taken up was Tucker ct n
against the towns of Eden and Lowell, a pet
ton for a highway, partly in lamoilie and part
" in Orleans county, and ii WAS heard on
motion to dismiss.
The case Of James o Follett against John {
SUBWAY, from Windham county, involve
questions arising from defendants neglect L
give plaintiff a replcvin bond when he, as al
officer, had replevied the plaintiffs horse. Has
kins and St0ddard were for the plaintiff ant
Waterman, Martin and Hit for the defendant
scott Dunklee against { NJ Goodenough, APP
peilant, from Windham county, WAS an action II
general assumpsit brought to recover on u note
given TO an agent for a sewing machine, which
was payable in lumber. Plaintiff claimed that
as defendant did not fulfill the conditions of the
note he was entitled to a judgment. The court
below directed n verdict for the plaintiff for
S67.44, to which 1.-THE respondent excepted, clam
ing that he had evidence sufficient to 20 10 a
jury. Waterman, Martin and Hit were coun.
sci for the plaintiff, Haskins and Stoddard for
the defendant.
Charles 5 Frost aud others against Charles II
ana Addie & Van DORM, from Windham county,
Is Il petition for Il new trial. The matter in dis.
pute Is the location of the dividing lines between
two pieces of Land in Brattleboro village.
Clark Fits and lIaskins and Stoidard were
counsel for the petitioner, and Waterman Mar.
tin and Hit for the defendant
The report of the committee on jurisprudence
and law reform, recommending in substance the
Massachusetts form of procedure and the Field
code in vogue in New York state was discussed
at length without decisi G action by C Wilds
of Middlebury, Joel c Baker of Rutland, l. NJ
Mead of Rockingham, W z Stafford of St Johns.
bury, John Young of Newport, J Il Watson of
Bradford, Il l. Waterman of Brattleboro, S C.
Shurtlefi of Montpelier, j W Gordon of Barre
and others, and an adjournment was made to
the first day of the May term OF the supreme
court. 1t Is evident that the report of this com,
mittce will not be adopted without opposition.
Maj J II Watson Of Bradford and John Young
of Newport were add ed to the committee.
The prospect Is of "a long and busy term, there
being lisa cases in all upon the docket.
The entire day Wednesday was occupied
with he arguments in the case of Lafayette c
Puwersv New England Insurance Co. This
action Is brought In general and special rs.
sumpsit to recover upon an insurance policy on
Il house and contents in Ne fame, which were
burned Nav 20, 1894. Plaintiff obtained n yer.
,tict in Windham county court ifor S14i.42. De.
PENDANT claimed Il variance between proof and
and that there was a lack of sworn
proof of loss which plaintiff was required by
the policy to make within 30 days after the loss.
Plaintiff claimed that defendant was stopped
from making defense by reason of The sworn
proof of loss being made too tate, as defendant
did not send an adjus.er as IL had agreed to do.
Ii it had done so the sworn proof would have
been made in season. CLARK, Fits, Waterman.
Martin and Hit weretcounsel for the plaintiff
and Butler 4 MolOney for the defendant.
The last of the Windham cornty cases was
argued yesterdays NJ Waite V a Starkey and il
the question whether Il replevsn will
lie In behalf OF an execution debtor agains; an
officer taking debtors property claimed to he
exempt. The case went up on II motion Ia dis |
Miss which the county court overrulled. Wat
.rman 4 Hit for Waite, Fits for Starkey.