Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1909-02-19
ADDISON COUNTY COURT.

OF ". y. duntleV VS.. the RUTLAND hdii-
road company was still on trial. This
case was brought to an end Friday even
ing and was the longest and most import
ant civil case of the tern. In brief, the
plaintiff Huntley for about 80 years had
run hotel, and in later years a livery
stable, near the railroad at Leicester
Junction. On the early morning of
Wednesday, October 80, 1907, the hotel,
destroyed by fire together with most Of
their contents. Everything in the barns
consumed, while but very little furni
ture was saved from the hotel Huntley
figured his losses as about $11 ,2B2, of
which $1,000 was on the buildings, $2593
on the contents of the hotel proper and
Sl669 on the contents of the barns The
plaintiff received within 30 days after
the fire $500 on policies in the Vermont
Mutual Fire Insurance company and the
Uuion Mutual Fire Insurance company
of Montpelier, and in this case sought to
recover the balance of $5562 from the
railroad company on the ground that the
fire was caused by sparks from the en-
gine of the sleeper going north Various
persons saw fire and sparks emitted from
the engine and the inference was that
the fire must have been set in that way.
1t appeared that at or about 10 O'clock on
the preceding night there were men in
the barns at work with lanterns, one of
which is unaccounted for. and that there
had been fire in coal stove in the har-
ness room of the barn where the fire
broke out, and which was the farthest of
the burned buildings from the railroad
tracks,
Miss Christine Huntley daughter of
the plaintiff, was the last witness on the
stand for the plaintiffs side. She gave a
detailed schedule of all of the articles of
furniture and ornaments in every room
of the house and set value on each,
from which was made up the item of
$2593 claimed for the loss of household
furniture. Mr.. Huntley, himself and his
eldest son, A. j., furnished the schedules
of articles destroyed in the barns. For
the defense, the engineer and fireman of
the accused engine, and other experts
claimed that it was impossible for an en-
gine such as the one which drew the
train that morning, equipped as it was
with appliances for the suppression of
sparks to throw sparks TO the distance it
would have to have done in order to
ignite the barn. And the defense kept
pOuuulilS Ill tnt ldCJ IndI tne IRE TnlRnC
have caught from the stove or a lantern
in the barn instead of from the locomo-
tive. 1t appeared during the progress of
the case that the two insurance com
panies above mentioned were interested
in the plaintiffs side of the result, mas
much as if Mr.. Huntley should recover
the balance which he asked, those COM
panies would stand a good show to re
coup themselves from the railroad COM
pany's treasury for the amounts they
had paid Huntley from their own strong
boxes.
The case was very ably contested on
both sides and took up in all eight full
court days, coming to a head on the Lin
coin anniversary. Alexander Dunnett
of st. Johnsbury and p. NJ. Meldon of
Rutland we've counsel for the railroad,
but Mr.. Meldon became ill and had to
give up the last two days and his place
was taken by Edwin w. Lawrence of
Rutland, general counsel for the railroad
Messrs Davis and Russell of Middebury
! fought the case for Plaintiff Huntley, and
MIR. Russell made the opening plea for his
side on Thursday afternoon, being fol-
lowed by Mr.. Lawrence for the defense.
Mr.. Dunnett closed the argument for the
railroad Friday morning and Mr.. Davis
wound up the pleading for the plaintiff,
in turn. Judge Stanton gave the case to
the jury at 1890 o'clock, charge of 40
minutes. The court room was thronged
during the arguments, as it had been at
other times during the trial.
The jury came into court at 80 with
a verdict. 1t was that they found no
cause of action and that the defendant
company recover its costs. And so
ended, for the present at least, some
what celebrated case.
Another case was got under way Friday
afternoon. This was George II. Hallock
VS.. Hubbard G. Potter, and the plaintiff
claimed $4,000 damages for malicious
prosecution. A. w. Dickens of Middle
bury and Frank L. Fish of Vergennes
were the plaintiffs lawyers and VIM. II.
Bliss of Middlebury represented Mr. Pot
ter. In 1906 Mr.. Hallock was running
ION shares" the farm of Mrs. Louise z.
Nash in New Haven, as he had done the
year before for her late husband. Hon.
Dorastus W. Nash. Mr.. Potter, who is a
brother of Mrs. Nash and a well known
horseman, was about the place a good
deal and at times acted as business ad-
wiser to Mrs. Nash. On the 18th of Feb
ruary, Hallock drove away COW from
the place, led her to Middlebury and de-
livered her to w. X. Foster, to whom he
had sold her. On the same day Defend
ant Potter entered "a complaint To States
Attorney L. G. Russell and procured
Hallock's arrest on charge of grand
larceny. After two postponements Hal
lock had hearing before Justice f. NJ.
Foote and proved to the satisfaction of
the court that the COW he sold to Foster
was his rightful property. whereupon he
was discharged. Hence this damage suit
for malicious prosecution.
| Tl,... IL -. A.
until the middle of Tuesday forenoon,
when the testimony-ln-chie for Halock
was completed and the plaintiff rested.
Judge Bliss at once moved that the case
be taken from the jury and a verdict
directed for the defendant on the ground
of no cause of action, since no malice
had been shown. The motion was ar
gued at length by Mr.. Bliss. and by
Messrs. Dickens and Fish in opposition
After consultation of 20 minutes or so
the court sustained the motion and di-
rected the Jury to return verdict for