Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1901-12-13
ADDISON COUNTY COURT.
Ciyii Cases Fill Out week-None of More
4 Than IocuI Unnnrtanpe

~ w Nnen we went TO press last week unej
bastardv case of Anna May Kimberly V.
Chauncey Ackerson was In the hands of
the Jury. The jury was out on the case
all Thursday night and when they came
in Friday morning it was only to an
nounce that they had been unable to
agree. Judge Watson gave them some
further instructions and sent them out
again to see If they could not come to-
gether on verdict. But 1t was of no
use and they returned once more Just
before II o'clock, and the foreman then
stated that there was no prospect that
they would be able to do so. They were
thereupon discharged from consideration
of the case. 1t was understood that at
the end the jury stood nine in favor of q
verdict for the young woman and three
in favor of a verdict for defendant Acker-
man.
One of the remaining cases set for
trial on the jury calendar was Frank l..
Fish, receiver of the Farmers National
bank of Vergennes, Y. Huldah Olin, an
action brought to recover the amount of
assessment on stock of the bank held
by a trustee in the defendants name.
For the defendant, Joel H. Baker of Rut-
land filed a demurrer to the declaration
and argued that there was nothing in the
United States statutes or any other
statutes which gives receiver of
national bank any right or title to bring
a suit as receiver under the common law
J in state court, and that there was no
statute law giving him such right. Mr..
Baker argued further that congress had
no power to pass laws regulating the
practice of state courts, and that even If
a receiver had right and title to bring
such suits at all. which he very strongly
: doubted, the suit must be brought in the
: federal courts. Receiver Fish, on the
other hand contended that as the bank
was a local institution and the receiver
local parsonage he as receiver did have
authority to bring such suits in the state
: courts. 1t was question of more than
ordinary Importance, and some half a
dozen other cases which Mr.. Fish had
brought as receiver of the Nergennes
, bank were dependent upon the decision.
, Judge Watson announced his decision on
the reassembling of the court Monday
afternoon. The decision upheld Mr..
Bakers contention, the demurrer was
sustained and the declaration adiudged
insufficient. The case on the plaintiffs
exceptions will go to the supreme court
fer fIal adjudication of the question in
volved.
, Friday forenoon the case of Otto p.
Moore V. Walter l.. Forbes, appellant,
was begun, with Ira H. LaFleur and
w. II. Dayis of Middlebury as Mr..
Moore's attorneys and Judge VIM. H.
Bliss and Frank w. Thomas of Middle
+ bury as counsel for Mr.. Forbes. 1t was
claimed for the plaintiff that he had been
, damaged to the extent of about 5000 by
breach of contract on the part of the
defendant. Forbes, the plaintiff claimed,
agreed to cut and bind some 30 acres of
grain, mostly oats, for the plaintiff in the
I season of 1900, and to do the work at any
time the plaintiff should notify him that
he wanted it done. The defendant, how
. ever, did not cut the grain when the
: plaintiff wanted it done, nor for some
= nine days later, in consequence of
which the plaintiff claimed that he had
lost about one fourth of his oats and that
: the oats harvested as we'll as the straw
were greatly injured by the delay in cut
: ting. On the defendants behalf 1t was
y claimed that Forbes never agreed to cut
# the grain on any particular day that the
o plaintiff might choose, and that ne did
g as a matter of fact cut the grain as soon
q as he could after being notified by Mr..
II Moore that he was ready, considering
n the rainy condition of the weather
$ This case continued through Friday and
e up to Saturday noon. The evidence was
If completed by IL O'Clock Saturday fore
noon and the arguments were limited tC
an hour on each side. Mr.. Davis made
\ the opening argument for the plaintiff
\ and was followed by Judge Bliss for the
Ne defendant. At the conclusion of Judge
nh Bliss's plea at II 80 o'clock recess wa
IT taken until , o'clock on Monday after
an noon, TO which time the jurors not en-
lg gagged in the case on trial had been eX
u cused on Friday afternoon.
n Upon the re-conyening of the cour
ar Monday afternoon, Lawyer LaFleu
IS closed the argument for the plaintiff il
,d the Moore V. Forbes case. Judge Wat
IN son thereupon informed the iur
oy that the plaintiff could not recove
nd under his declaration, as there wa
NdTlaDCe between Tue uecldIdlion al
n' the proof, and dire cted them to brin
to verdict for defendant Forbes o
ng his declaration in offset, the verdict to b
:, 'e >, 81 for every acre of grain that they foun
iii from the evidence defendant had cut fo
ed plaintiff, with interest on the amoun
he After an hours deliberation the jur
rn 40 rendered vedict for the defendant
i'm recover S2S 20 and his costs.
ir The third civil jury case of the teri
ns us was started shortly before o'cloc
up Monday afternoon. 1t was Clayton Ca
Die v. Edison Owen, V. A. Ballard and r.
re- Brown of Burlington representing II
no a,,, Carl side and C.. j. Russell of Burlingto
zee and |. ii. LaFleur the Owen interest
For the past three years and more theI
'ed has been bad blood between them an
a aiu quite a little trouble. Now Mr.. Ca
In comes into court and asks for damage