Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-04-06
FIRST CASE TRIED.
An action IN Recover n Real Estate
ComnsisslOn Now In JWry's Hands.

An Action ~ Recover n Real Estate
CommissiOn Now In Jwry's Hands.
IN" first jury case OF The term was he
run Thursday in county court and before
Ugh, the testimony was In. the argn-
'1cnts were made. the judges charge was
delivered and the matter was in tn"
hands Of the jury The morning session
WAS about half over bcrorc the iurS case
MAS reached. tho time previous to that
t'ins occupied with court matters.
being occupied with court matters. 1t
WIS expected that the grand jury would
Vomplete its business yesterday Hut one
witness could NOT be secured and an adj
1ornment WAS taken until this morning
NJ $50 o'clock when III" matters before
that body Will be disposed Of and they Will
hf ready TO make their report.
'I'he jury case tried was hat uf Frank
II. Iarrand IF Essex ". i'ctcr Iiurio ot
Cole hester. an action brought To recover
commission of sio2 alleged to he due on
! transaction in real estate hciw'cu l.. j.
Nrisht and l,ortl" in which Farrand acted
rs broker. When this case WAS first called
Attorney NJ. =. Villas said his client MIR.
Tordo. was not present and that he could
no' be located. Mr.. Villas said he had tcle
phoncd Tor him. Judge Watson asked II
tho telegraph had hcc', used and upon re-
cclNing ii ncsatiN. reply ordered the clerk
to call the jury.
In the opening statement Attorney Allen
Martin for The plaintiff, stated that Mi.
Farrand claimed the amount as commits
SION aud expenses in bringing about the
sale OF Il farm from MIR. Wright to Mr..
Errdo, the latter at his own request be-
coming responsible for the payment OF
'hr commission 10 Mr.. Farrand MIR.
Has said that evidence would show that
'hc farm deal WAS mad" between Mr..
Wright and Mr.. Bnrdo and that Mr.. Far
rand came into the transaction after the
agreement had bccn practically concluded,
that he WAS not employed AS Il broker
hut tina; Mr.. Bordo mad" an agreement
with him tn pay him SIS il he could sue
coed in getting the occupant of the farm
L" move away at once. This the defend
ant claimed Fairand failed to do but he
cause he had done what he could HE dc
PENDANT paid HIM 81.
MI l'arrand was the first witness and
testified tina, he brought about the sale
rs Il broker and that Mr.. Bordo agreed tn
pay him the commission, receiving the
farm for $500. because OF that under
standing. whom the price would have been
81 40 il Mr. Wright had assumed the obi
ga ion of he commission. Mr.. Farrand
cad Mr.. Burdo later offered him Il con-
mission of SIS hut that h" refused. agree
inc. however. to split tho difference be-
tween 81 and sio9. lie said h" never re-
t.iN.d his commission.
During the couiSc If the day Mr.. Dur,lo
appeared and upon the witness stand mad.
Il general denial Of tho Statements made
hy Mr.. Farrand. At the close OF his tcsti-
nony the arguments We're made and tho
case went to the jury.
In the case of Florence A. Rowcll chas,
vs. George NJ. Rowcll. Y. A. Billiard with.
drew as counsel for the defendant. Judg-
mont was rendered for the plaintiff by de-
fault.
In tho Gaze Of I.ylan ". Daniels IS. les
lie r. I'cGrout. in which motion tn dis
miss was made by II. :. i'crN f"r The de-
tondant and which was opposed by NJ. |.
Powell for the plaintiff IA decision was
rendered everything the motion. EXccp
tons were noted.
\ motion was made by II. S. Peck /,
have bail in hc case of Henry Prince vs.
j. W. Durham reduced because the de
PENDANT vas poor man and could no
secure III" sum of S;.NN. After Il hcarn,
bal was reduced to $500. In the cas-,
IF !. 4. Murphy w. Harry Hoardmal ant
Mrs. ". q. Baldwin a motion for Il con
iinuancc made by IT, Il. Shaw. represent
ing The defendants on tn" ground that h'
was III was denied and the case stands
for trial.
II was stated Thursday that there Wa:
little probab ability that the Cos2rif- Nc
sweeney case would he licd this tern
owing TO the absence at DR.. w. II. lund
who is Inc principal witness for the plain
Iins. lie is in California and is not ex
ptctcd 10 return 10 Vermont until SOM
time in June.
II this ease IL not tried il may mcal
the continuance of the case Of 4. y. Kin;
vs. Dr. u. II. Mcmahon. an action for al
legged alienation cf affections, as it Wa
stated by Attorney Cushman that Dr
lund was AN important witness in tina
ease. The continuance Of these Two cases
the former Of which is the most importan
clVil ease of the term. would mean Il ma
lciial shortening of tho session.
Joseph l. Irwin. Of Columbus. Ind
has given 100000 to Butler college, In