Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1907-08-23
ADDISON COUNTY COURT.
Continuation of June Term After
Recess Since July 8. May
Last Some Time.


The work of the June term of the
Addison County Court was resumed at
three o'clock on Monday afternoon after
a recess since Saturday, July 6. Assis-
tant Judges E. A. Field of Panton and
Frank G. Dyer of Salisbury were also
present On the bench at the opening of
the session.
Work was started up at once on a
motion for continuance in the case of
the Riverside Condensed Milk Company
vs.. A. d. Everts and trustee. This case
had been set for the jury at the present
term, but by agreement of counsel was
Burlington argued the motion for con-
tinuance and Frank w. Tuttle of Ver-
argued against it. Mr.. Mower of Burl-
ington, the receiver, had something to
say, but did not see clearly how he stood
in the case, and it was taken under
advisement.
A motion for continuance was next
made in the case of John H. Donnelly
VS.. j. II. McKannon, appellant, which
had also been taken from the July cal
ender The motion was argued by
Frank w. Tuttle of Vergennes in favor
and by j. w. Page of Burlington in
opposition. Decision was reserved.
The next case taken up was that of
Mary F. Hammond and others VS.. George
F. O. Kimball. This was another case
which had been set for jury trial, but
was passed over on the fact that the
defendant was a Juryman at this time
Court Mr.. Fish of Vergennes, represent
ing the plaintiff, made motion for con-
tinuance, which was opposed by Mr..
Tuttle of the same city in behalf of the
defendant. The court took the case un-
der consideration.
Most of the time of the session was
taken up with a motion to set aside the
verdict in the case of Frank j. Hubbard
VS.. the Rutland Railway Company. The
Jury, it will be remembered, at this term
rendered verdict in favor of the plain
tiff to recover $4,000 damages and his
costs for injuries received in the rear-end
collision at Vergennes on the first day of
December last. p. NJ. Meldon of Rut-
land, representing the defense, filed
motion TO set aside the verdict and in
arrest of judgement, on the particular
grounds that the verdict was excessive
and that it was contrary to evidence.
Mr.. Meldon argued the case at length
and was followed by Former Congress
man and Judge II. Fl. Powers, who, in
supplementing Mr.. Meldon's argument,
put some considerable stress upon the
present high lived hostility to corpora
tions, whatever they are charged with
and whether guilty or not. The case
was closed in the argument at 4 $50
o'clock and as a matter of course no
judgment was announced.
Tueday and Wednesday the Court
went in a body up to Bristol, to see
what they could learn in regard
to the case of The Bristol Manufactur-
ing Company VS.. E. B. Palmer. These
parties own adjoining timber lots in Bris-
tol and the plaintiff Claims that Defend
ant Palmer has been cutting wood over
on their side of the line. This Mr.. Pal
mer denies and the suit is brought only
in friendly way so as to determine just
where the boundary line belongs. James
B. Donoway and Charles l. Button of
Middlebury attended the hearing in the
interest of the plaintiff company and w
w. Rider of Bristol and F.. L. Fish of
Vergennes represented the defense.
The court came back from Bristol
Wednesday evening and Thursday morn
ing the case of the Bristol Manufacturing
Company VS.. f. B. Palmer was again
taken up. Mr.. Palmer, the nominal de-
fendant, was on the stand all the fore
noon and up to the time that we close
our report
1t looks as though the term would last
the rest of the week and there is a posi-
bility that it will run over into nexi
week.