St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1903-11-18
IN SUPREME COURT.
A CaledonIa County Case Involves the
ConstitutionaIify of the Local Option

A Caledonia County Case InvoIves th,
ConstitutionaIify of the Local Optiol
Law.
The Caledonia county cases wer
reached in the supreme court calendar
last week. The two cases William T
Foss v. Clarence Smith, trespass, anc
William T. Foss v. Clarence Smith, peti
ton for new trial, were heard togethe,
by agreement. Porter and Thompson
appeared for the plaintiff, Dunnett and
Slack, May and Simonds for the defend.
ant.
The following Caledonia county cases
on the trial calendar were continued;
Israel 7. Farrow, Jr., v. R. A. Ordway,
trespass; Judson S. Hurlbutt v. Henry F.
Estabrook, general assumpsit; Adna S.
Clifford, guardian, v. James O'Brien,
bill.
The divorce case of Mary Ann
Bailey v. George Bailey, argued in
supreme court, is as unusual as it is in
teresting. After living together more
than 40 years at Goss Hollow in st.
Johnsbury the plaintiff at the last June
term OF Caledonia county court obtained
divorce on the ground of intolerable
severity. Permanent alimony in the sum
OF $500 annually, payable on or. before
the expiration of each quarter also the
sum OF $12 per month payable quarterly
until further order of the court was
awarded the plaintiff and the case comes
to the supreme court upon exceptions by
the petitionee. The divorced wife seeks
to obtain one-half of the DEFENDANTS pen.
sion money towards payment of her ali.
mony. The claim of the defence is that
money paid old soldiers by the govern
ment In the form of pension inures to
their sole benefit and caunot be used in
payment OF debts of obligations like the
IN question. Harland B. Howe
and M. Montgomery argued the case for
Mr.. Bailey and R. W. Simonds for Mrs.
Bailey.
The liquor case of State VS.. G. Con.
stantino of Hardwick was reached Fri.
Jay afternoon and its Importance arises
rom the fact that it involves the consti.
.utionality OF the local option law.
states Attorney Morse and his law
partner, B. E. Billiard, appeared for the
state and the defendant was represented
1y J. z. Lamson of Cabot
The defence bases its arguments on the
allure OF Section 6S of the acts OF 1902
o state maximum fine. Section 6S of
aid act says: The fine shall not be less
han $500, or imprisonment not less
han three nor more than twelve
1onths." The penalty imposed, il it is {
IMPRISONMENT, is limited but if a fine it ;
unlimited. Sections IS, 90, 70, 10. IA
IL make the penalty, if fine, unlimited. ,
herefore they insist that the Legisl,
nre OF 1902 failed to keep within its {
institutional limit in the passage of I
ais section 6S without putting limit
pom the extent of the fine to be imposed i
nd the section is forbidden by the Con. c
tuition. The defence had not been
Die to find any state that has statute '
here the penalty for any offence is left 4
'ithout any limit to the punishment
nat may be imposed by the court. 1t !
as also argued that according to Sec .
on 6S of the statute which fixes the G.
enalty for furnishing, selling, exposing
keeping tor sale the same $500 mini.
um they would not claim a fine of a
800 tor liquors excessive, but claimed it
ould be excessive for some kinds of
rn'shing and for keeping for sale if not h
~ sale or for exposing. They also n
'gued wrong Indictment.