Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1899-03-17
essex County Arrala.
ISLAND POND, MARCH II.
Essex County Court, rlarch Term,
1900.


p. m. Wednesday March 8, with
the following officers in attend
ance:
Hon. ]. w. Rowell, Chief Judge.
Hon. w. G Nelson and Hon. \.
T.Holbrook, Associate Judges.
Geo. A. Hubbard, Clerk.
H. w. Lund, States Attorney.
ID. Cobleigh, Sheriff.
The court opened with the GUS
tomary formalities and then pro-
ceeded at once to the business of
the term.
Among the interesting cases
disposed of at this term was that
in re Harvey Lacrosse. This
was habeas corpus in which the
relator prayed to be released
from Imprisonment in the county
Jail at Guildhall. 1t appears
that the relator had been
arrested in the County of Essex
on a warrant issued by magis-
trate founded on a complaint
that the respondent had broken
the windows of a dwelling house
and done other damage to the
dwelling. The respondent was
convicted and sentenced to pay a
fine. All these proceedings were
in the County of Essex. a mitti-
mus was afterwards issued in
which it was stated that the re.
spondent had been convicted of
breaking the windows, etc,
emitting that it was done will
fully or maliciously. This nit
timus was put into the hands of
an officer who arrested the re.
spondent at St. Johnsbury in
Caledonia County and commit
ted him 20 the Jail at Guildhallin
Essex County. The court held
that the mittimus was INSULT
cient, that it stated no crime, for
that all the respon dent was said
to have done might have been
done innocently, that it was not
a crime unless done wilfullv, ma
liciously, etc. The court also
held that although the arrest
out of the County of Essex was
on a mittimus it was error to
commit to a jailin county other
than in the county where the ar
rest was made, and discharged
the respondent or relator.
Some new questions arose i'll
letters VS.. Hazen. This was an
action of general assumpsit to
which the defendant pied an off
set in book account. 1t was re-
ferred to an auditor who heard
the whole matter against plain
tif's objections and found the
amount due, considering the &C
count on both sides, and also
the amount due on defendants
offset independent of the whole
deal. The question as to the
correctness ofhearing the whole
matter before the auditor, to-
gether with other questions, goes
to the supreme court.
Another important case dis
posed of was that of the Turner
Falls Lumber Co. VS.. Charles E.
Burns. This case involved the
title to large portion of the I'M
divided lands in Guildhall and
was heard on the report of a
referee. 1t is too complicated for
us to make any statement of the
questions raised. To try these
two cases alone by jury in the
county court it is said would re.
quire three or four weeks time
There is apparently left on the
docket no more than three or
four days contention, and the
docket is still kept down to a
very small number of cases. At
the opening of the court the
docket contained fifty cases,
about one-halfof which were dis
posed of leaving about rs on the
docket.
Divorces were granted in the
following cases:
Eta O. Bennett VS.. G. A. Ben
nett; bill granted for intolerable
severity, custody of Ray Bennett,
minorchild, decreed to petitioner
Lizzie Emerson VS.. Samuel l..
Emerson; bill granted for in
tolerable severity.
Maria S. Mosher VS.. Leslie
Mosher; bill granted for wilful