Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1899-02-16

The Wheelock Bridge Case Before
the Public Again.

Montpelier, Feb 9.-In Supreme Court
to-day hearings in Washington county
cases We're continued. In the case Of John
and r. w. Kelley ". the town Of Nor
town, apt, ]. W. Gordon appeared for the
plaintiffs and T.. A. Heath for the defend
ant. This is case in general assumpst.
John Kelley, it appears. kept a town
charge and assigned his claim against the
town OF Moreiown to K. W. Kelley, who
brought suit against the defendant for the
recovery of ;he amount claimed. The case
was tried in the court below at the March
term, 1905, and resulted in a iud sment on
the verdict for the plaintiff to recover So,
to which the defendant excepted.
The two cases Of clara LOCklin vs.. ..
O. Davis and that of Arthur Stevens ct al
We Lewis COburn, apt, were submitted to
the court on briefs and without argument
The case of W. o. Stand!sh ct a. vs.. the
city of Montpclier and tn town of Bcr-
lin, better known as the "Whcelocit
bridge case, was heard to-day This
case came on for hearing at the Septcm-
Der 1898, term of the court below on mo-
ton of the Montpelier and Wells River
Railroad company to recommit the report
rendered by the commissioners, w. T..
Stafford Lakoy A. Kent and Henry W.
Nichols, and on exceptions filed to the re-
port by the railroad company.
The court, without hearing and stricgly
pro forma overruled the motion to re-
commit and the exceptions and accept d
the report and rendered judgment ther, on
and the case comes up to this count ON
the exceptions of the railroad company
for whom ]. r. Lamson appeared, +. l..
Laird and r. Il. Gordon appearing for the
plaintiffs.
The commissioners after rccounting
their findings IN the case say, "ln our
opinion, the public good and the conVeu-
ienco and necessity Of individuals rcqui =
h.. 1,tr ha / iu IN q
we think il should be laid at a grade wi n
the railroad Nacks where II crosses them.
1t is imprtc ticAblD 70 build it under the
tracks and the expense of constructing il
over the tracks would be very great. We
find upon evidence that an over grade
crossing would cost, exclusive of LAND
damages $4,000"
Tho railroad company IN its exceptions
to the report of the commissioners, give
eight reasons why the report should not
be accepted By the court which ombo y
the following points: That the report find.
that the road should not he built unless
it can cross the tracks at grade; that tn,
road should not cross the tracks at grade
because ii would be against the statute.
of tho state; that the court should no
accept the report until the railroad com
missionerS have passed upon whether OF
not the crossing should be at grade; tina
the public interested in the use and safety
OF IL TdlIOdu Is very IuCll RltdltT lUt4I
that interested in a single highway anC
the proposed grade crossing increases tn
danger of the great mass of people VIII
use the railroad even though the PROPOSED
road may accommodate those who use It
In the case of State vs.. Arthur j. Smith
+. A. Rowland appeared for the state an,
r. A. Hoar and f. y. Carleton for tn
respondent. At the March term, 1897 tn
respondent was adjudged guilty in III
> court below of keeping Il nuisance in tn
city OF Barre. The case comes to this cour
on exceptions taken by the respondent L
the charge made by the court TO the jury
} In the case of State vs.. Intoxicating lid
=, nor, John Jchbours, keeper, A. G. Fay an
peared for the State and X. A. Hoar 10
defendant. This case was appealed fror
q the Barre city court to this court ana !
, search and seizure proceeding and tn
9 whole contention in the case arises on tn
!, construction to be given sections 1870 an
n 1896 Vermont statutes,
= In the case of State vs. John Iaforres'
:, r. A. Hoar appeared for the State an
y c. u. Edgerton for the respondent. TN
@ respondent was at the September tern
: 1895 of the court below a1iudGed guilty {
q having committed sodomy in Northhel
q on the 10Th of September last. His COur
~ sci moved the court to direct an acqultti
!, on the ground that the proof disclose
n the commission of no crime known TO IN
! laws of Vermont. The motion was denie
and the case comes to this court on III
respondents exceptions.