The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-10-14
Juror in SANDER Case Is Az
legged to Have Thought
DID HE SAY SO AT TRIAL /?
On That as aBsis A. E. Holman Of Brain
tree Asked for New Trial Of Case
in Which He Lost s4oo
Verdict.

In the Vermont supreme court today
the case Of A. z. Holman VS.. II. II.
Flint OF Braintree was argued on the
petition Of Holman for a new trial of
the slander case of FLINT against Hol.
man in Orange county court. In the
lower court Flint secured a verdict OF
S406 against Holman because Of state
inent alleged to have been made during
hearing for the appointment Of H.
cense commissioners IN the town Of
Braintree. Flint considered that the
statement damaged his character.
During the course Of the trial Juror,
George II. Sargent, is alleged TO have
told his room mate, another Juror, that
he didn't like Holman's looks and that
he should vote to bring in verdict
against him when the case was given
to the jury. Hence, he demands a new
trial in county court, the arguments
being made today.
The case Of Sawyer VS.. Child was sub
mitted to the court on briefs today, as
was the case OF Frank Barrett VS.. r.
L. Dickinson. II was announced today
that the Barre case Of Thomas Blake
ney vs.. Noonan and Harrington, H. D.
Camp, trustee win not be ready for
trial at the present term; nor win the
case of John B. Dillinghan VI. G. f.
Moody be tried at present. This leaves
the malpractice case of A. c. Lawson
against Crane and Hall as the only
Washington county case to be heard
this term.
An interesting taxation case was
heard in the Vermont supreme court
yesterday, it being that Of John G. Cool
idge, lister of the town Of Plymouth,
against Warren r. Taylor who claims
that he is resident of Woodstock and.
therefore, not liable to tax in the
town Of Plymouth, the listers Of which
arbitrarily assessed him. The defend
ant asserts that he was not given due
notice Of hearing and was in conse-
quence unable to appear and make out
his grand list in zoos. The plaintiff
got verdict in the lower court.
The plaintiff contends that the de-
PENDANTS legal residence is in Plymouth
that he was given the same notice that
other property holders were given and
that the amount for which the defend
ant was assessed was fair and not ex-
cessive.
The defense is trying to prove that
there was an error In receiving the ro-
cord Of the warning for and the pro-
ceedings at a meeting Of the legal vot-
ers of Plymouth in March, 1908, and
that there is no evidence to show that
the warning for the meeting had been
posted II days prior to the meeting, AS
required by law, and that an assess
ment for $4,000 was made arbitrarily
without any foundation in fact and pre-
sumably out Of malice.
In reply to the plaintiffs question az
to why the defendant did not return
an inventory to the listers of Wood
stock If he was not a resident of Ply
mouth, the defendant answers that it
was not his duty under the law to re-
turn an inventory in April, 1908, I'm
less upon demand Of one Of the listers.
The afternoon session Of the court
was in session less than an hour and
the case Of Warren W. Gould and i. S.
Spaulding against John Preutiss and
Harry NJ Miller was taken up. In this
case triple damages is claimed because
Of the alleged cutting of certain timber
on leased land. I'm the lower court the
plaintiffs got damages Of $3.50 and their
costs.