Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-04-05
Judge Rowell Renders Decision in
the Case Against the Van
Ness House.
MUST PROVE NEGLIGENCE.
to Learn That Liquor Was Not to be
They Are Liable Assumed
They Took This Precaution.

The decision OF chancellor j. W. Row
ell in the case of the State VS.. L. A..
Woodbury., proprietor, and II. r.. Wood
bury and II. y. clark, managers of the
Van Ness House, in which an injunction
was asked TO issue against the Van Ness
House restraining the sale of Intoxicating
liquors, was filed with the county clerk
Monday afternoon, having been mailed
from Randolph. The decision overrules
the motion and the injunction is denied
This disposeS of n case concerning which
there has been much comment on account
of some interesting features outside the
fact that the proprietor of the hotei is
well known Throughout this and other
States. The petition for an injunction
was made by states Attorney Brown last
fall during the period when injunctions
were the order of the day. 1t grew out
of the banquet of the Vermont Fish and
Game League at the hotel, at which a
pint of Bass ale was served at each
plate. The claim made in defence was
that the ale was furnished without the
consent or knowledge of the proprietor
a ruling was also received from the Su-
preme Court H. the case of Willis v Farr
vs. the estate of Or. George G. Briggs, an
action brought to recover from the estate
on the ground that the deceased was Il
trustee of the Vermont Investment COM
pany, in which the defendant was in
Volved and therefore liable. The case
came up on decision from IToodte
Court disallowing the claim. The entry
Is: Fro lorna declaration OF the County
Court affirmed, demurrer overruled, dec
laration adjudged sufficient and cause re-
mandod.
Tho decision of Chancellor Rowell in the
Van Ness House case is as follows:
JUDGE ROWELL'S OPINION.
This case came on for hearing on a mo-
for init iC n
statutory Information in chancery. filed
by the states attorney of said county on
Nov. 3. 1899, alleging that the defendant,
L. A. " oodbury. owner and keeper Of the
Van Ness House in Burlington, a hotel
and place of pubic resort, and the other
defendants his servants and managers
intoxicating liquor thereat, and that the
first the managers knew of such intention
was on the 14th of Nov, when the ale
was sent to the Van Ness House by some
members Of the league; that the propre-
tors first knowledge that ale was to be
used was about % minutes before the
banquet when he saw what appeared to
De ale potteS upon the tables, mat he did
not drink of tn" a.e and went to mis- resi-
dehce before the banquet was all served,
remaining in the dining room but n short
Time; that at no time during the negotia-
ions Tor the banquet nor at the t!inc the
contract therefor was made did the repre-
sentative oftlcer5 ana members of the
banquet say or intimate that they had in
Vited guests thereto or expected any to
he present nor did they inform the de-
PENDANTS at the time of the banquet, nor
subsequently that persons other than
members Of the league were present or
being present drank Of the ale; but that
ulVers persons and numbers unknown,
VINO We're not members of the league Were
present and drank of the ale which the
n