Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1901-10-31
ESSENCE OF PEPPERMINT.
On Trial by Supreme Court-M Many
Cases Argued

Montpelier. oct. 3O-Supremc Court IS
diSposing of business very rapidly his
term. Yesterday seven cases were argued
ard to day nearly as muCn was done The
first case head was from Franklin county
being that of f.. G. and 5. G. Green vs..
james Mcdonald and others. The dcfah
dints Burton and Soules sold ;.ic Trc-
mont Hotel to Mcdonald to build over into
collar and cuft factory. Liabilities were
incurred by Mcdonald under the nam2 If
Glen Falls Sfirt Co., amounting to sever
al thousand dollars. A mechanics lien
was given and also chattel mortgages.
i he problem of who shall be liable Tor the
debts of the Shirt CO. to which Burton &
Scwlos furnished capital has been fought
over now for nearly twenty years. Burton
& SoWles claim that trey lad no part Of
the business but had merely loaned Nc
Dcnald money. Hall for plaintiff and
Sowles and Post for defendants.
Franklin county case of Stat vs. f. II.
Learned has been continued owing TO in
ability of respondent to appear now.
Rutland county case of Proctor Trust
Co. vs. Edward ). Johnson as administrl-
tor of estate Of Marcia II. Chattcrton.
Waite c. Johnson. University of Vermont
and State Agricultural college and Ncr-
mont Marble Co., was called up and upon
agreement of the parties decree was ;f-
frred and cause remanded. This WAS a
bill in chancery for foreclosure OF mort
gage. Butler ard MaCLey for petitioner
and Barber ana Darling for pctiiionee.
Franklin county case of State vs. Fred
kczer was heard The ruusual event of
evident amusement of the court occurred
in this case. The respondent was con-
Nictcd of selling intoxicating liquor in Vio-
%ticn of the statute and an appeal was
taken. The respondent sold some pepper
mcnt essence to a man who drank the
same and became intoxicated He WAS ar
rested and convicted for drunkenness and
disclosed on Kezcr. The question of
"hethcr TINS llquCr Was intoxicating in
the sense of the statute was Submitted to
the jury. To this the respondent excepted
claiming it "A point OF law for the court to
decide, and The question is also under dis
rute as to whether peppormcnt essence
pre- pared according to the regular formula
is Intoxicating liquor under the statute.
The state insists that since the man was
made drunk by it the essence was intoN-
icating and it also insists that the essen ce
was soil with the knowledge that it
would be drunk or at least under such cir
cumstlnceS that the knowledge Shoull
nave been had. Attorney Tupper for the
respondent presented TO each of the judges
of the court small vial of the liquid un-
der dispute and in the course of his re-
II arks was somewhat facetious. fIe as
serted that if peppermint essence should
be put under the ban of the prohihitOry
law great wrong would be done human
ity for the small boy would then nAve to
bear his stomach ache in tears and All the
other troubles of the stomach Tor which
peppermint essence is used would be un-
cured W. II. Fairchild and f. S Tupper
for respondent and II. w steele for State.
Rutland county case of George II. Bot
tum vs.. John {. 5heeh3n was discontiu-
ued this fore noon.
Rutland county case of Charles +.
Angler VS. Horace A. Perry apt. has teen
disposed of without hearing, judgment be-
ing affirmed.