Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1910-12-23
COUNTY COURT.
Adjournment After . Short Ses-
sion LASTING EIGHT Days.


O'Clock last Saturday morning, wher
Sheriff DIN A. Smith, by direction OF
the court, declared the term adjourned
without day.
During the two preceding days a
considerable number of cases were
taken up and disposed of, temporarily
or otherwise. Thursday afternoon ir
the case of Fannie E. Wiley VS.. Will.
liam R. Wiley, previously heard, a
divorce was granted on the ground OF
into lerable severity, and the custody of
the minor child was decreed to the pc
titioner. James B. Donoway of Middle
bury represented the wife and no de-
Tense was offered by the husband.
The same afternoon the case of the
American Agricultural Chemical COM
pany VS.. Lewis N. Kellogg, in gen eral
assumpsit, was taken up, and as there
was no appearance for the defendent a
judgment by default was given for
the plaintiff to recover $3.50 dollars and
costs. A. w. Dickens of Middlebury
was the attorney for the plaintiff.
In the case of Jessie H. Chapman VS..
Edison G. Brown, trespass case, dis
continuance was entered, and the cases
of Thad M. and Jessie H. Chapman VS..
William N. Lathrop and the Brooks
vile Manufacturing Company VS.. the
Sterling Marble Company were entered
settled and discontinued.
In the case of James Peterson VS..
Frank d. Meehan, note and general as
sumpsit, the defendant did not appear
nor anyone to represent him, and on
the motion of Charles l. Button of Mid
dlebury judgment by default was rem
dered for the plaintiff, the amount in
volved being about 5000. The same
night the defendant turned up from
somewhere in the far West and the
next day the default entry was stricken
off at the instance of Mr.. Button and
the case went over to the June term.
Friday morning divorce was grant
ed in the case of Jessie E. Murray VS..
Frank Murray, previously reported,
and the custody of the minor child was
decreed to the libellant until further
order of the court and the libellee was
given the right to see the child at all
proper times.
Two more divorce cases were heard
at the morning session. The first was
Alice H. Lafayette VS.. Peter Lafayette.
This couple were married in 1900 and
made their home most of the time since
in New Haven. The petition was based
on the grounds of intolerable severity
and refusal to support and the case was
so fully and clearly made out that the
bill was Immediately granted on the
grounds set up, and the petitioner was
also granted custody of the minor
child. j. G. Page of Bristol repres-
ented the petitioner.
Hannah B. Morgan vs.. Versil w.
Morgan was the next and last divorce
case. These parties were married in
Lincoln and with the exception of a
four years residence in Poultney had
always lived in that town since their
marriage in 1874. Mrs. Morgan brought
this petition on the grounds of intol
cradle severity. The bill was granted
on that grounds and for adultery. J,
G. Page and Frank Fish of Vergenne.
were Mrs. Morgan's counsel. Prior t.
the hearing an agreement had beer
reached in regard to alimony in case the
bill was granted and stipulation hac
been filed. The divorce was consequent
ly granted with alimony as per stipula
ton on file, and by this stipulation Mrs
Morgan was decreed alimony of $1,000 il
cash and real estate situated in the towr
of Lincoln of the value of about $4,000.
In addition to this she was given three
dollars per week for the care and sup.
port of their crippled adult son, the
only survivor of six children.
Friday afternoon a novel case was
heard. 1t was E. H. Palmer VS.. Martil
F. Fuller, the former belonging in
Monkton and the latter in Ferrisburg
with Mr.. Fish representing the plaintiff
and Messrs. Rufus C. Brown and John
j. Enright of Burlington appearing for
the defendant. This was petition tc
set aside the judgment of the justice
court of Justice Joseph Stone, held ir
North Ferrisburg in August last in
which Fuller, the defendant here, was
given as judgment for $3.50 damages
and 500 taxed costs against Palmer fol
fraud in the sale of a horse. Mr.
Fish wanted to show by oral testimony
what steps had been taken at the time
of the justice court to perfect the APP
peal, whereas the defence claimed that
no oral testimony could be admitted but
! that the plaintiff must stand on his
written petition alone. After some
short legal sparring between Mr.. Fish
on one side and Messrs Brown and En-