Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1897-08-25

i MAJ TENN, 1CCts
Present.
Hon. Henry H. Start, presiding Judge,
Hon. Charles H. Markham, asst. judge,
Hon. Henry j. Parker, asst. judge,
| j. Read Pember, clerk,
II. Spafford, sheriff,
John II. Minis, reporter.
The court resumed its session on the
18th inst, and took up the case of r. A.
Swan VS. George A. Baker, book account
action. It appeared that Mr.. Baker had
sued Mr.. Swan in Rutland county and that
the parties had entered into an agreement
in writing to take both cases out of court
and arbitrate their differences. The arbi.
tration was held and an award made and
published which embraced all the matters
in controversy in both suits. Mr.. Swan
wanted to hang on to the pending suit not
withstanding this award and Mr.. Baker
pleaded the award in bar of this suit. The
plea was sustained and Judgment rendered
for defendant to recover his COST Mr..
Edgerton Of Rochester for plaintiff Mr..
johnson Of Woodstock for defendant.
In Fred c. Davis, assignee, vs.. Oscar
D. Olcott, judgment was rendered for de-
fendant on the report of Hon. E.. l.
Waterman, referee. Exceptions by plain
tiff; f. G. Davis pro Sc: l.. M. Read for
defendant.
| In Merrill L. Lawrence VS.. Wilson S
Lowell, no report was made by the referee
and the case was continued. j. w. Pierce
and G. A. Davis for plaintiff; w. b. G..
Stickney and E.'B. Finn for defendant.
| In the six cases of Chapman and wife VS.
Richard Langworth and others Of Spring
field, no reports were filed and the cases
were continued. Subsequently the chan
cellor granted leave upon the usual terms
equity. E. B. Finn, W. w. Stickney and
W. E johnson for plaintiff; G. A. Davis
and w. B. c. Stickney for defendants.
In real estate of L Carlos Davis, Ruth
S. Davis and others appellants. This was
question about the removal of an admin
istrator. A hearing was had on the 10Th
inst but no result was announced. Gilbert
A. Davis for appellants; Stickney & Sar-
gent for appellees.
From the following statement it will
appear that the court has not been very
liberal in granting divorces, or as expressed
by an old time lawyer in pulling The bow
| pins" The contested case Of Julia L
Lawrence VS.. William w. Lawrence had
this novel feature, that of the defendant
coming into court, conducting his own
cause and personally cross examining his
wife and son who testified against him and
then testifying in his own behalf.s Mr..
Lawrence is farmer and resides in Wood
stock. He has had several sstiltsn before
and about Judge Thomas O. Seaver for
| xub0v,, hn bnx,a
Mr.. Lawrence and his family have not
agreed and his effort on this trial was to
show that he was not the party in the
wrong. The court took Mr.. Lawrence's
view Of the case and refused the divorce.
was her duty to 60 home and live with her
husband and help support the little girl.
j. G. Enright conducted the case for the
petitioner.
The results from the divorce docket have
been unusually meagre. One reason for
this was that the death Of Judge Parker
really prevented the completion Of the bus
mess Of the term.
4 Divorces have been granted as follows
i Roxa M. Buzzell from William G. Buz-
zell for adultery; Enright & Blanchard for
petitioner.
/ Sarah j. Colby from ferdinand Colby
for intolerable severity and refusal to sup.
port G. A. Davis tor petitioner.
| Charles M. Hall from May F. Hall f,l
adultery Frank A. Walker for petitioner
| Turna G. Merrill from Sanford Merrill
for intolerable severity George L. Fetch
er Tor petitioner.
John H. Silver from Margaret M. Sill
yer marriage annulled Pingree & Pingret
tor petitioner.
i May A. Tarbell from Edwin w. Tar
bell for intolerable severity; Stickney &
Sargent for petitioner.
4 Sarah Ellen Sanderson from Warner
Sanderson for refusal to support; Wilson
for petitioner.
). Divorces were refused in the cases O.
Julia L. Lawrence VS. VIM. w. Lawrence
Of Woodstock.
Fl Mary Jane Slate VS. Lucian E. Slate O
Chester.
, There remained undisposed of at the ad
journment of May term 25 divorce cases
seven divorces were granted.
, The case of James Reach came befor,
the court on the Goth on a motion to Sc
aside the verdict as having been rendered
against the evidence. The court over
ruled the motion granted bill OF excep
ceptions, did not pass sentence and or
dered the case to the supreme court; j
; G. Sargent argued this motion.
The raid of the states attorney AM
sheriffs at the time Of the muster a
Chester came to the front next b,
the arraignment OF Landlord Rowell an,
his bar tender Of the Hotel Fullerton fo
selling liquor. Each pleaded not guilty
4 Mr.. Rowell's bail was fixed at $1,000 ant
his bartender's at $500 and their case
were continued. E. B. Finn and w.
c. Stickney appeared for these respond
nnfs