Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1899-02-02
RUTLAND COUNTY CASES
Taken up When Supreme Court Resumed
its Sittings Tuesday,.

Montpelier, Jan. ~31.-Supreme Court re-
sumed It's session in this city this morning
when cases from Rutland county We're ta-
ken up. In the case of the New England
Fire Insurance ompany VS.. David n.
Haynes, Butler and Moloney appeared for
the plaintiff and G.. L. Lawrence for tho
defendant. The suit is over a note given
by the defendant for 500. payable by in
stallments as the plaintiff shall demand.
The case was tried in the lower court
during the March term. 1875. and resulted
in a Judgment Of $lOS9 AZ damages for the
plaintiff to which the defendant excepted.
Tho demand. it appears, was made about
10 years after the date of the note and
the defence is based on the statute of limi-
tations and the question argued is, does
the statute OF limitations run from date
of note or from date of demand.
In the case of Lucy Jane Andrews. apt,
VIZ. estate of Mary Ann Sargent, j c.
Baker and Ormsbee and Briggs appeared
for the plaintiff and Moloney for the de-
PENDANT.
This is an appeal from probate court
for the district of Rutland. in a decree
of distribution of the estate of Mary A.
Sargent, in which construction was given
70 the will of David Richardson, deceased.
The case was heard upon an agreed state
IN ~ of facts at the March term, 1898, of
Rutland County Court, where the decree
of the probate court was affirmed. The
lut SllDH Is over llt ifFTlTtttAllOH tI INC
construction of the wa in which David
Richardson left an estate to his two
daughters who are named above.
In the case of William {. Mound VS..
Chas. e. Barker. Bromley and Clark and
j. c. Baker appeared for the plaintiff and
Butler and Moloney and f. S. Plat for
the defendant. This case was heard in
the March term, 1898, and resulted in a
judgment, proforma, for the defendant
and came up to the Supreme Court on
plaintiffs exceptions. The plaintiff took
bond from Edward Mayo and A. p. Pol
lard as principals and c. H.. Barker as
surety for the performance of cOvtn ants
in the lease of a hotel from Mound to
Mayo and Pollard and now seeks to re-
cover against surety on the bona. The
defence Is illcgality of contract alleging
that intoxicating liquor was sold in the
hotel while the plaintiff claims to have
NJ knowledge that it was Intended TO keep
liquor for sale in the motel.
In the case Of John Morrell &Co. VS..
New England Fire Insurance company, G.
II. Lawrence appeared for the plaintiff
and Butler & Moloney for the defendant.
Tho plaintiff sues TO recover insurance on
Implements used in a meat packing estab-
lishment which were burned in July, 1873.
roticc OF The loss of which was sent to
the insurance company in tile same
month. The defendant sent the plaintiff
n letter in March, 1894, containing one
sight draft and four time drafts stating
that If he would accept them the company
would pay the loss. The plaintiff accept
ed the sight draft but not the time draft.
The defence holds that there was n limi-
tation in the plaintiffs policy which says
no action shall be brought for loss unless
begun within one year from the time of
loss, while the plaintiff say the defendant
is estopped from this defence on account
of its proposition cited in its letter TO the
plaintiff.
In the case of the Cheshire Beef COM
pany VS.. George c. Thrall, Butler end
Moloney appeared for the plaintiff and j.
c. Baker for the defendant. This is a
small case in assumpsit in which judg-
ment for the defendant was rendered in
March term, 1895, OF Rutland County
Court and the case comes up to the Su-
tpreme Court on the plaintiffs exceptions.