Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1903-06-26
County Court Aftermath.

court came to an end Friday morning,
June ~, after a session of ten days or
parts of days. There were only three
jury trials, two civil and one criminal.
Two civil cases were tried without a
jury and eight bills of divorce were
granted, while two petitions for divorce
were dismissed for cause after the hear
ings had begun. On the whole large
number of the old cases we're disposed of
in such a way as finally to disappear
from the calendars.
The following cases were considered
and disposed of after our last report
closed.
Arthur Delphia VS.. Rutland Railroad
Co., appellant. This suit was brought to
recover $40 the value,of a horse killed
on the track in Niddlebury in July last
year. The case was submitted to the
court on an agreed statement of facts
by the counsel, l.. c. Russell of Middle
bury for the plaintiff and p. NJ. Meldon
of Rutland, for the railroad, who also
submitted oral arguments. The court
held that there had been contributory
negligence on the part of the plaintiff
and decided the case in favor of the
company. to recover their costs
In re will Of Mary G.. Mather, Mary A.
Wallace, appellant, Laura Angel ct al,
Legatees. This was an appeal from the
Probate court district of Addison, and
there was quite an imposing array of
counsel. The testatriX was a resident of
Shoreham and in 1900, while visiting
relatives in Port Henry. y. y, made a
will devising considerable amount of
property. The Probate court upheld the
will, from which decision the appeal was
taken. joel g.. Baker of Rutland. eX-
GOV. Il. j. Ormsbee of Brandon and w
III. Davis of lIddcbury appeared for
the proponents Of the will and r.. +.
Brown of Burlington and Thomas w.
MoloneY of Rutland appeared for the
contestants. The county court gave
/ judgment establishing the validity Of
the will as the last will and testament
of Marietta c. Mather, finding that the
testratriX was Of sound mind when the
will was made and that the instrument
had been legally executed. Exceptions
to the findings were taken by the counsel
for the contestants
Joseph Battell vs., William E. Hanks,
after various temporary dispositions. was
in the end entered continued.
In the case of \. Z. Tupper's executor
( vs. j. K. Jones ct al, on the chancelv
docket, a motion was made 10y LAWYER
1 latleur for the defendants for leave to
file a cross bill, Mr.. LaF.leur claiming
that the papers in the original case had
never been served on the defendant
parties and that the "authorized person
had committed perjury by swearing TO
false return. Judge Watson overruled
the motion after some severe remarks.
during which he said that the only
remedy which the defendants had now
was against the person who made the
false return and he very plainly init
mated that criminal prosecution for
perjury against that person would not
be contrary to Hoyle. Mr.. Davis Of
Middlebury had charge of the case for
Mr.. Tupper'S executor
Fred Nutall vs. b. w. Crane was set
tied and entered discontinued
In the divorce case of Charles /.
/ Hammond vs. Mary Ann Hammond,
begun last December and not then
granted for want of proper proof of the
marriage Mr.. Hammond was able to
/ furnish the lacking proof and was
granted a divorce with the custody of
/ the minor children, Lawyer FISH of
! Nergennes represented Mr.. Hammond,
no appearance for the wife.
! Hattie }. Merrill VS. William H. Merrill
which was partly heard, was sent over
to the December term ON account of the
absence of important witnesses: and for
the same reason the divorce case of
Damos K. Sorrell vs. Mary Sorrel was
continued. Mr. Fish was counsel for
the petitioners in both of these cases,
with no defense.
Esther Davis, administrator VS. Henry
c. Davis, appellant another appeal from
the decision of the probate court, went
over to the next Germ.
The two moribund cases of the state
VS. James b. Donoway, states attorney
of Addison county, were continued on
the recommendation of Joel C. Baker
the special prosecutor.
In the matter of the estate of William
Morton VS. H. G.. Morton ct al, appel
lants, still another appeal from the Pro-
bate court, the judgment of the lower
court was affirmed and the case certified
back to that court. Mr.. Baker appeared
for the proponents in place of H. +. Dee
represented by Mr.. Fish and Charles F.
Kingsley of Salisbury.
On the closing morning of the term
Judge Bliss moved that the verdict in the
case of Emma S Richards VS. Joseph
| White for bastardy, which has already
been sufficiently detailed, be set aside
for various good and strong reasons and
new trial directed. Judge Bliss ar
gued his motion for 50 minutes and Mr..
LaFleur used up about - minutes in
reply. The court considered the ques-
tons brought up very briefly and after
coming in again overruled the motion,
Judge Watson stating, however, that
there were some things brought out in
the argument of Mr., Bliss which i'm
pressed the court quite forcibly, but
that he did not think it proper to set
aside in this case the verdict of a jury
who had had all the facts before them
in court and had a right to base their
1 verdict on those facts The defense took