Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1910-05-11

experiment but sustained them IN /,
other points. The railroads and COM
missioners will get together for fur
Their discussion of work to be done at
that point. This opinion throws upon
the railroad the costs of whatever
changes the public service commission
may finally order and exempts the |
town of Hartford and the state of Yer
mont from paying any part of this ex-
pense, on the ground that if a railway |
or railways maintain public station |
they must also maintain proper ap- |
proach to it.
Carlos D. Slack VS.. Dana Bragg, |
false warranty, from Orange county. |
In the lower court there was verdict |
for the plaintiff to recover $83 and |
costs. Supreme court reversed this |
| Judgment and the cause is remanded. |
| Opinion by Judge Powers.
| Perley A. Crawford VS.. 0. V. Joslyn,
from Orleans county, judgment in the
lower court for the defendant to re-
cover his costs affirmed. Opinion by
Judge Powers.
Frank G. burlington VS.. G. H.
Grimm, from Rutland county, judg-
ment of the lower court reversed and
cause remanded Opinion by Judge
Munson.
The Addison county case of the
Middlebury Electric company and
others VS.. Charles S. Murkland, and
others was continued and in the Essex
county case of A. C. Hodgdon VS..
Charles A. Blois, the Judgment of the
county court was affirmed.
: Argument in the we'll known Jenness-
Simpson case from Caledonia county
was finished Friday morning The at
; torneys in the case are Howe & Hovey
! for the plaintiff and Reirden, Cook and
Redmond for the defendant The
& plaintiff filed motion on the first day
of the term that the exceptions be dis.
missed as the order of the court in re-
: gard to reducing the verdict from
e SO, 3S3 to So, 500 had not been complied
with, which the supreme court over
n ruled, whereupon arguments were com
s menced.
. The plaintiff comes to supreme cour
k on 46 exceptions to admisslbility o
IS evidence and to the Judges charge, ais
1t claiming an excessive verdict and erro
Of the court in refusing to alloy
e certain evidence to be introduced.
l-a The suit involves a contract entere
) into between Oliver Jenness and hi
Ie wife in South Dakota about her secul
10 ing a divorce and releasing her an
le Waiter Simpson from satisfaction i
a law and equity.
al The evidence of the plaintiff tende
IN to show that Jenness and his wife ha
in lived together for thirty years and ha
r raised several children. She elaine
r she left him because he threw hc
at water, milk, and dishes at her ar
grossly abused her, and that she wei
a. away with Walter Simpson locating
ne Sioux Falls, South Dakota, whe1
(. Jenness found her and arranged tern
r. Of settlement which were she was
Id ipay him 81, 600 cash and $4,000 whe
lie she got a divorce and in additiC
le was to deed to their son Perley, certa
properties owned In Sheffield and S
of j ohnsbury. which was done after tt
IL divorce was granted Jenness disavov
as IA settlement with Simpson and clair
a that part of the contract was omit
r. when read to him. After securing
III lglivorce, Mrs. Jenness married Simps
1t Land they came back east and now +
Id side in Stanstead, Que. Two mont
n. before she left Vermont, Mrs. Jenne
he inherited $4,000 from an uncle
st Chicago, $4,000 in cash and $40, 900
1y be held in trust for her for Is year
r. Jenness and Simpson were neighbo
nd En Sheffield.