Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-04-26
FOUR MORE INJUNCTl0NS.
Other Cases Continued in Chancery |
Court YesterdnY.

Other Cases Continued in Chancery
Court Yesterday.
Injunction matters were again taken up
in Chancery Court yesterday morning at
10 o'clock and testimony on the part OF
the State was introduced in several cases.
Some injunCtions were made permanent
and others were completed in so far as
hearings are concerned but no entry was
made. The DEGREES were in the follow
ing:
state vs. Eugene Gosselln, Adna p. Cos
selln and Bridget Moore, drug store at
the corner of North Champlain and North
/ streets.
state VS.. Joseph Mitchell, Battery
street
State VS.. Michael Murphy, William p.
Gleason and Michael Mckenzie, store near
the corner of North Avenue and North
street
state VS. f. Henry Parker and Walter
S. Vincent drug store. Church street.
There was testimony taken in both OF
| the cases against Gosselin Bros. but an
| entry made IN the case of but one of the
stores. Sheriff Reeves was called by the
state and testified to having searched ana
found liquor at the stores. Rev. George
w. Morrow was called to tell the familiar
story of trip to Portsmouth. n. H.
where he examined records and to *
plain what "R. l.. D." signihed. When
Mr. Cushman asked to see the record
States Attorney Brown remarked that 1t
was the same old one he had so often
seen. The chancellor then asked to see
the record, remarking that he had never
seen it,
/ When the evidence in the case against
the Gosseln store in which a decree was
entered was completed, Chancellor Taft
asked Mr.. Cushman If he knew of any
reason why n decree should not be en-
! tered Mr.. Cushman replied that he did
not think he was in position to object;
What do you think about it, asked
the chancellor.
! II would rather not be attorney ana
chancellor too" replied Mr.. Cushman.
Your position is correct one" said the
chancellor and a decree may be entered
/ for the orator"
In the State VS.. Louis Hamlin the pay
ment of the revenue tax was shown and
Sheriff Reeves testified to having search
cd and found liquor there.
/ There was no defence in the case against
Joseph Mitchell and after the testimony
of Sheriff Reeves a decree was entered
/ In the case of the State We. f. Edward
Alard and Mary j. Allard there was no
defense as to Mr.. Allard but in respect TO
Mrs. Allard it was claimed that she
bought the building in September and that
no liquor had been kept since the pur-
chase. Sheriff Reeves and Frank l..
Graves were examined as to the reputa ton
OIL tne pace ana tho case LETT at Una
point In order that the defence might sum-
mon another witness on the same line OF
evidence.
The defence made no contention as &c
defendant Parker in that case but held
that w. S. Vincent had sold the property
involved. The injunction was allowed tc
issue 1t was also announced that while
there would be no contention in the case
of the State VS.. +. l.. Taft. there would
he an answer as to Fred II. Wells, the
owner of the property.
Testimony was taken in the case OF
state VS. Michael Callahan. Augustus j
Premier and Bridget Callahan. Sheriff
Reeves told Of searching the place in qucs-
ton and the discovery of ingenious hiding
places.
The testimony of William Mcneil OF
Shellurne to the effect that he had nc
knowledge liquor was sold at the Shell.
burne Hotel which he owns. was intro
dncod in the case of the State VS. William
Mcneil and Fred Larose There will be
no contention in this case as to Larose.
DEGREES for the orators were entered ir
the cases of the Burlington Trust Co. vs.
c. c. Peck ct ais, C. b. and H. L. Wether.
by vs.. John w. Lee and wife. and the Ma.
tonal Life Insurance Co. VS.. Elnora Ever.
EFT ct ais.