Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-08-28
SUPREME COURT
Many Decisions Rendered on the
Cases Heard at the MAY
Torn.
LIVINGSTON VS.. c. S. PAGE
Judgment of the Lower Court Affirm
ed-Full Text Of the Opinion-No Re-
lief for Farmer Selling Cider
Fined $lOO-1usurance 60
sioners Upheld

Montpelier Aug. 21.-Supreme Court con
vcncd III the court room at the state house
to-day 10 render decisions on cases heard
at the May term with the fun bench pres
cnt. Among the attorneys present from
out of town were A. v Hat Willard
Harrington and G. w. Burloson of st. Nj
bans; Geo. NJ. Powers of Motrsvile, W.
". Stickncy Of Ludlow, : T.. riugrcc of
Hartford. J. +, Cushmau and ~, $ Peck
of Burlington f. W. Baldwin 1f Barton.
NJ. A Burt 4 Sw nton J. G.. Have of
NOrWiCl md t.. - MppdA - waterbury.
ro. III .. N,r" rondo' 81 it, Hrgc nun
be, o. cass, the most important of hicn
was tn. Termination ,utt.., .y,... ot j. 4.
Livingston Us c. :. Page. The decision
was rendered by Judge Muhson and was
as follows:
At the close Of the plaintiffs evidence
tho defendant moved that verdict Ice di-
rcctcd in hls favor on the ground that the
contract claimed 10y the plaintiff vas VOID
as against public policy. The court hold
the contract void for the reason assigned
and directed a verdict accordingly. The
case is here upon the plaintiffs exception
to this holding.
Th" plaiutin called the defendant rs
witness. The evidence consisted of certain
CORES pondcncc had by the parties and
the testimony of the parties as to the cir
cumstdnccs in which the letters were writ
ten, the meaning trat wdS attached to the
language used the matters enclosed for
publication by ono party and the services
rch"'r'u u! 'h' o'h'r' anu Su'S'd,e'l'
standing of the relations they had sustain
ed.
The defendant claimed that no contract
with the plaintiff was in fact consummatc1
ana 'Hdt 'i'' "n,N coh'r"Ct ever con''nh-
pay" W. ono i"r inc PuoIicSitioh "I 'N-
'r"c'S rom "'n'r papers AT IeSi'I'',"'c
'!'.' = 80! .'' HP'', "'""''N '"h'I nc
al I a.
ground ''t 'Ialth'n 10 recover reason
anlc compensation Tor thc support ana NJ
HI'"'e "l MS paper ana MS service" as It's
'iil"l'
II" pIall'lh was d'inocrat puoIShli'S
Il "fHo' r"'l' paper "I iid'l"Hu'H' P'"'lNI-
tics Ih' Defendant WAS repllhllcan
seeking ii nomination TO congress from II
r'luhIl'an convention. 1t appeared from
the plalntlil testimony that he consider q
delthndhtS pfol"Shl an appHcatl"h Tor
tn use ana lnnu"nce OF ms paper IN the
nature OF Il retainer; that ne accepted 1t
with the understanding that his paper ana
MS services as editor would he at the COM
maud OF the defendant during the cam
paiGn. TO be settled for at its close; that
ne was To do all he could to influence the
choice OF delegates and secure the defend
ants nomination; that original matter
MAS within tin Scnp" of his contract. and
that his editorials were written in that
view; that n" supported the defendant be
cause of his contract and the money he
WAS to get cut OF II; that he expected to
receive Il larger compensation if defend
ant WAS nominated than he otherwise
would that he tried to conceal his rcla-
tious with the defendant from the public
ana understood that the defendant was
trying to do tho same; that he took TINS
course because II would make his efforts IN
Influencing voters in defendants behalf
more successful
$40 decided by this court in 1860 is one of
the few cases bearing upon this subject.
The plaintiff in that case was Candi-
date for office of town representative and
n creditor OF the defendant. The defendant :
party affiliations were such AS would nat
urallV lead him to vote for tho OppoSinc
candidate. Conversations were had which
resulted in a mutual nndarst ,n.1i,.. ,llt
the defendant should use his influence in
favor of the plaintiffs election. and if
the plaintiff was successful tho defend
ants Indebtedness should he treated as
paid. Induced by this agreement the de
fcudant supported the plaintiff : candidacy
until his election was declared. There was
no agreement that defendant should vote
fol the plaintiff unless II WAS implied in
the above understanding. He voted for
the pldintin, however and did be
cause of the understanding. The suit was
for the recovery of the indebtedness re
it mad been satisfied The court considered
that there was sale Of Defendants in
fuonce ana vote, held the agreement void
ana gave Judgment for the plaintiff.
Inc agreement in that case involved
both IN" dotohdants vote and his in
hn'hce upon the votes OF others but the
COURTS discussion of the subject does not
I"dNe hluch douht as to what its con-
,IuSlons would nave been If the undertake.
l,II n"u "''h Conrhed to the latter service.
my u" "'Sihctl"h could properly lie
| ina"' po,"'cn IN" two But THAI tho con
az an ''''u"n' ana the plaintiff contains
.i"t H'"Sil"'il rs 'ducuS"S ANA conVcn-
tI''S are not creations Of the law con
| '"V'S wv S''NI'rS III lhnuenclns the choice
| ~ u'''S"''S ana the action of "A conVen-
,"I'''"' NC considered against public
i't.'
~ i'll'Ss vs. HeslnR' ~ Ill, l13 tho con-
! u",' WIS Tor services or this character.
- SuSF.Sl'" mat there may have been
! = !"M III mat Stdtt regulating primaries
."' '"c'e II II" in'lha'lon or one in the
! "Il.Ion ana we nave found none in the
nm n"'lor We nave hecn able to make
mere the plalntln sent the defendant 80
| WIN request that no use his influence t.
e.. Plalhtin nominated FOR n certain of
n.e' ana a direction to call upon him fol
! q" more u ne got the nomination. The
uriSnoan' kept inc S-O and aided the plain,
Il ~ opponent Inc sult was to recover
'"'o my IVY u'c ooiehnant hah Judg'
mont The decision was announced by Jus
lloe Lawrence who characterized tn,
,ransa' tlon as IAN attempt to influence
Inv lSYl tt..r,v h.,