The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-01-27
Supreme Court.

ChittendeD county court after the evidence
was in. defendant moved the court to direct
a verdict because contract had its inception
In this state and was Therefore void, and that
the goods were shipped under fictitious
name to aid the defendant to evade the
laws OF this state. The court sustained the
motion and directed a verdict for defend
ant, to which plaintiff excepted Argued
by ID. j. Foster for plaintiff, and II. f.
Brown for defendant.
The Montpelier Seminary, apt, V. Eliza
Smiths estate. An appeal from the dsal-
lowance OF commissioners. Plea general is
sue, and statute of limitations. Plaintiff
claims to be- allowed the amount Of note
OF 81 600 of Dec. a. 1884, and interest since,
which defendant claims was without CON
sideration and was void as a gift Plaintiff
claims that an annuity contract delivered
by plaintiff to defendants was A sufficient
legal conderation for the note In Chtten-
den county court there was a judgment,
pro forma, for plaintiff for 8 ,105.05 and in
terest from Sept 8, 1896, and costs. Frank
g. Partridge and Dillingham;, Huse & How
land for plaintiff; 7. e. Wales and o. p.
Ray for defendant.
In re John j. Enright. From Chittenden
| county. Petitioner, who resides In Bur-
] iington, seeks his restoration to the offices
| of attorney at law and solicitor in chancery,
| from which he was removed by the supreme
| court in 1895. The case was presented TO
the court by Daniel ROBBERS and Henry Bal
| lard for petitioner. Petitions for Enright's
|
the bar of the state. 1t was brought out
in argument that 2l8 signatures had been
obtained. No one appeared in opposition.
In re William Thayer. Habess corpus
From Bennington county. The main ques-
ton in the case Is as to the mittimus upon
| which the relator was confined in the house
OF correction, to which he was sentenced
ak months and fined $500 and costs. Moth
ing was said in the mittimus about its be-
ing for a recent conviction. The offence
to- sxxAz
tent to sell. States Attorney e. Bates
produced a certified copy of the record of
the court which showed that this was
second conviction. The introduction OF this
record was objected to by G. P. Niles, the
attorney for relator.
Samuel Desaney v. Thomas W. Thorp.
Trespass and Trover. Judgment in court
below for plaintiff for $4,000 damages and
costs, and u. W. Wilbur assignee v. same
troyer in WHICH there be was Judgment for
Charles T. Barney for plaintiffs; j. J. Mon
ahan and Bliss & Deberville for defendadt.
Mrs. e. Parkhurst v. Joseph Kreillinger,
apt, and trustee. General assumpsit. Plain
tiff seeks to recover for boarding and nurs-
ing Nellie Krellinger, an unmarried daugh-
airy and March, 1884, while Nellie was sick
at plaintiffs house. In Washington county
court there was verdict and judgment for
defendant. Exceptions by defendant. The
, | u.
tiff, and r. A. Hoar for defendant
| III. o. Camp v. j. III. Ward ct al. In
, chancery. Plaintiff. as deputy sheriff, sold
O horse at auction upon an execution which
\ was bid off for defendants. Defendants
: afterwards obtained judgment against
4 plaintiff, which was affirmed in supreme
, court. Orator, in his original bill, asked
that unless defendants consent to have
said judgment set aside and q new trial
awarded, that they be perpetually enjoined
!, from enforcing said Judgment or from exc
: cutting it, Orators amended bill relates
( mainly to newly discovered evidence. Both
demurrers of defendants to the original and
amended bill were sustained by the cham
cellers in Washington county court, the lat
ter by pro forma decree. r. A.. Hoar and
j. W. Gordon for orator; E. W. Bsbee and
j. P. Lamson for defendants.
. James w. Kent v. L. d. Miles. False
imprisonment. The court directed YER
dict for defendant in Washington County
|, Court; o. Exceptions by. plaintiff. Tho
t Der 8, 1887 by defendant then sheriff of Or
leans county, in a warrant dated at New
port September IA, 1887 The final adjourn
, ment Of Orleans County Court of the term
: in session when the warrant was issued
was September 10, 1887. The plaintiff
claimed that no court can issue a warrant
. to bring person before itself after 1t has
t ceased legally to exist. At the February
r term the case was mol pressed and respon-
|
on a warrant for his appearance at the Feb
9 ruary term. Briefs were passed up with
out arguments, 7. j. Deavitt and w. W.
Lapoint for plaintiff; W. w. Miles for de-
fendant
Harry ]. Bertoli v. E. L. Smith g. Co.,
=, Apis. General assumpsit, from Washing
q ton county. Verdict for plaintiff $132.56.
s The question is as to whom defendants
: should account for two tablets, the trade
r being made with one W. A. Rice and to
I | whom their testimony tended to show
p, credit was given upon pre-existing &C.
count. Plaintiffs evidence tended to show
that Rice was specially authorized by him
to make the sale; that he charged the two
t tablets upon his books to defendant; upon
t demanding pay Of defendants he was told
I by them that they had paid Rice; that he
then demanded pay from Rice and insti-
tuted a suit against him, but upon learning
that they had not paid Rice as above stated.
he instituted this suit to recover for the
D tablets. f. l.. Laird for plaintiff; j. w.
Q Gordon for defendants.
7 In re William Thayer. Pending the de-
r cision OF the supreme court the relator was
remanded to the house OF correction Thurs
5 day morning.
, William Seymore v. The Central Vermont
: Railroad Co. Plaintiffs declaration showed
f that on October s. 1894, while passing on
foot from Burlington to Winooski outside
of track and outside of each Of cars, a
freight train passed to which was attached
| d long rope, WHICH Caught MIN dDOuI inc arm
7 and hand and dragged him along long dis
: lance and broke his arm. Plaintiff claims
gross carelessness and negligence on part
!, of defendant as regards attaching the rope
to the train and suffering it to pass outside
and TO rear OF train. The court in Chitten-
den county, pro forma, sustained defend
ants general demurrer to plaintiffs amend
ed declaration. Plaintiff excepted. IL. +.
Wolcott for plaintiff: q. W. Writer'S for de-
PENDANT.
, Grace 1. Parker V. Taylor o. Parker and
trustee General assumpsit. In Washing
ton county court a verdict was directed for
defendant. Exceptions by plaintiff. Plant
iff seeks to recover the balance OF trust
due her Defendant claims that her rem
edy is in equity. j. p. Lamson for plain
tiff; j. w. Gordon for defendant.
Town Of Barre V. School District No. in
Barre. The treasurer OF the district on
March 49, 1893 divided among the tax.pay-
ers in accordance with the vote of the dis
trict S83 Il in his hands. Demand was
, sonsbly made for said funds after April 1,
1888. Judgment in Washington county
court for plaintiff for S100.65. Motion to
dismiss overruled Exceptions by defend
for nIa A