The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-01-13
CITY WINS PAVING CASE.


Munson in the case of State W.. II. l.
Stanley, Franklin county ease, IN
which information was filed against the
respondent for larceny, but ON motion
b. dismiss in county court. and exeep.
ticns by the respondent, the ease was
brought to this court. The decision az.
firms the Judgment OF the lower court
and remands The cause 20 be heard at
the next term OF the Franklin county
court.
Chief Judge Rowell announced de-
cision in the Rutland county case Of
r. X. Pember as administrator Of the
estate OF Sarah A. Burton vs.. Charles
~. Burton, an action u general assump-
SIT in which the plaintiff seeks 10 re-
cover the amount OF a note. The, case
was heard in the court Of ehancery and
Judgment was given the plaintiff, but
the decision Of Judge Rowell reverses
the Judgment OF the lower court aud re-
mands the cause with mandate 10 dis.
miss the bill with costs In the supreme
court but without costs in the lower
court.
The case of Alexander & Hutchinson
vs.. City Of Montpelier, road case In
which the plaintiffs seek TO have the
present position Of road abutting on
their property in Montpelier changed,
was decided by an opinion by Judge
Rowell. Three commissioners were ap,
pointed by the lower court 10 take up
the matter and their report was in
favor of the plaintiffs, but the decision
of Judge Rowell reverses the Judgment
OF the commissioners and allows the
defendants 70 recover Us costs.
Judge Watson rendered decision
~ the Rutland county case of Adelaide
NJ. Davis as Administrative Of the es.
tate Of Silas w. Davis vs.. Rutland r. r.
company. This case was brought
against the railroad for alleged negli.
genee resulting in the death Of the
plaintiffs husband and in the lower
court verdict of $500 damages was
awarded the plaintiff, but the decision
Of the supreme court reverses the
Judgment of the lower court and re-
mands the cause for new trial.
The case Of Alexander Findlay VS..
Lewis Longe ct I'll. Washington coun.
~ case originally brought for trespass,
was decided by an opinion by Judge
Haseltou in which he affirmed the de-
crae Of the chancellor Diminishing the
bill with costs to the defendant and
rernanded the case back 10 the lower
court.
An Orange county case. that of Jo-
seph Coreyo vs. Elbridge Holman &
George Trask, was decided BY an opin.
ion from Judge Watson, in which he
reverses the judgment Of the lower
court and remands the case to trial
This case was brought 10 recover dam
ages for alleged trespass and after
trial by jury verdict was rendered
for damages amounting to sill, but on
exceptions, the case came TO the SUI
preme court.
In the ease Of c. v. r. r. and Rutland
r. r vs. City Of Burlington. the city
OF Burlington seeks to condemn certain
land owned by the two railroads above
with the idea Of building
public wharf, but the plaintiffs contend
that the city has no right to enter into
business as a private individual in conf
petition with other companies which
own wharves that are used for the
same purpose as the proposed wharf.
They also contend that the city has no
right to act az Judge in tha matter Of
how much shall be paid fora the land
taken and it WIS on this point that the |
greater portion Of their argument was |
esed. Chief Judge Roweli. who read
the opinion decided that the city has |
the right to build the wharf. being EN-.
powered to do so BY the laws OF the
state and that it also has the right TO
Judge Of the necessity. !