The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1901-11-06
SUPREME COURT.

In supreme Court on Tuesday after
noon the Orange county adultery case o.
| state against John f. Kmball was called
| The respondent was missing The court
ordered the bonds of $1,000 forfeited ant
adiudged that the respondent has waived
his exceptions. g. w. Wing of this city
and Judge w. III. Nichols of Randolph art
bondsmen for Kimball
In the Windham county case of John b
and Josiah b Divoll, apis against Oscar
| ID Olcutt's estate Judgment was affirm
ed, the appellant not putting in an APP
| pearance, An order was certified to pro
! bate court, This was an appeal from pro-
! bate court, by the decree of which Oh
! cults widow was to receive $1,000 and one
! half the PROPERTY remaining from her
| husbands estate.
The Franklin county court In re Stew
ems and Adams was also heard In this
case the LamOille County National bank
is appellant The bank held notes signed
by Stevens and Adams as suretes in the
sum of $500 The dispute is over the liza
bility of the sureties, they claiming they
| had been released John Young for the
sureties. George NJ Powers for the bank
The Rutland county case of Proctor
Trust Company against Edward S.
johnson, as administrator of Marcia
II. Chatterton's estate, Waite c. John
son, the University of Vermont and
State Agricultural College and the
Vermont Marble Company was dispos-
ed of by ageement. Decree affirmed
and case remanded
The Washington county case of Nor
ris McKinstry against o. r. Collins
and b, II. Lowell has been continued.
The Orange county case of State
against Francis Buck was taken up
Wednesday, The respondent could
not be found when the case was reach
ed on Tuesday, but he was apprehend-
ed on the street this morning by Sher-
if Graves. He said he did not know
he was wanted in Supreme Court or
he would have been on hand. Rut-
land county cases come next.
The Franklin county case of S. G.
Green against James Mcdonald and
others was heard Wednesday. The
case of State against Leonard from
that county has been continued.
The Franklin county case of State
against Fred Kezer was heard We'd
nesday afternoon. The respondent
was convicted in the lower courts of
selling Intoxicating liquor and took
his case to Supreme Court. Respond
ent admits that he sold customer
some essence of PEPPERMINT on which
it is claimed he became intoxicated.
The question as to whether such
essence is Intoxicating under the
meaning of the statute was submit
ted to the jury in Franklin county
court, and to this exceptions were
taken.
Some amusement was created i'll Su-
preme Court during the argument of
F. S. Upper for the respondent.
Each of the judges was presented with
small vial of the liquid under dis
pute and Mr. Tupper's argument
brought smiles even to the faces of
the sedate court Mr. Upper ar
gued, among other things, that if es-
sence of PEPPERMINT were put under
the ban of the prohibitory law, hui
manity would be wronged. The small
boy would then have to bear his stom-
ach ache in tears, and all the other
stomach troubles to which flesh is
heir would have to go incurred.
The Rutland county case of George
r. Bottom against John c. Sheehan
has been discontinued
The Rutland county case of Charles
E. Angler against Horace A. Perry,
apt, has been disposed of without
argument, judgement being affirmed.
The Rutland county case of William
W. Stickney, administrator of the es-
tate of Gilbert f. Johnson, against
Frederick Parmenter, debt, on pro-
bate decree, was heard Thursday.
Stickney and Sargent for plaintiff, j.
c. Baker for defendant
Two Chittenden county cases were
also heard. John S. Wilkins against
Truman p. andDon G. Styles and 9TH
ers, and Alexander Tuffi against An
gelo Rail- Guiglio Ralli, the latter
from the city court in Burlington.
Washington county cases are next in
order. Alec Carrow against the Barre
railroad company was set for this af-
ternoon, +. p. Carleton and f. L.
Laird for plaintiff, j. P. Lamson for
defendant. At the March term of
1899 of Washington county court the
defendant was awarded So, 900 dam
ages for the loss of leg at the cross
ing near the fork shop in Barre.
The exceptions were filed in Febru-
airy, 1901.
The Washington county case of A.
E. Hutchins against the Barre Water
company was argued Thursday after
noon by j. w. Gordon and William
Wishart for the plaintiff r. M. Har-
vey and E. M. Harvey for the defend
ant. This is suit brought by the
tax collector of the town of Barre
for taxes assessed on the Barre Water
works lying in the town of Barre.
The question now is, was the property
taxed to the proper party? A docu.
ment purporting to be deed but of