The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-09-29
ROW over RECORDS
H. G. Moore, Clerk of Plain
field, Seeks to Recover
$500 From Constable
OLlCE CHIEF INVOLVED

Mentioned in This One--Au Evil
dence Put in Yesterday and the
Summing Up Begins Today.
The most interesting, If not the
most important, case that has come
up for trial in County Court at this
session is that of Hiram G.. Moore.
clerk of the village of Plainfield.
against r. V. Duke, constable, of
the village to recover $500 for tres
pass. Moore as village clerk had in
his custody the books containing rec
ords of the village meetings Last
March the trustees desired to secure
a copy of the certain bylaws con-
tanned in one of the books and F. H.
Bruffee, one of the trustees, at the
request of John Ryan, chief of police
and road commissioner, went to
Moores home and asked to take the
book. This Moore refused to allow
him to do and Bruffee so reported TO
Ryan and they both then went to the
house on March 3, according to their
testimony, and on the second visit
Ryan asked for the book and was
refused. He testified that he then Of
fered to pay Moore to take a copy
of the records desired and this Moore
also refused to accept, telling that
he could not have anything whatever.
Ryan then consulted w. N. Their
iault, attorney for the village of
Plainfield, and a replevin writ was
made out and served on Moore, who
after consulting with Harry Laird,
delivered the book The replevin writ
having served its purpose the action
was not entered in County Court
The bond for the action was signed
by Ryan and Burffee
Among the witnesses called during
the day were the plaintiff, Moore,
Harry Laird, Ryan, Duke and Bruffee
On the direct REORGANIZATION by the
attorneys for the plaintiff, Moore de-
MED that Ryan or Bruffee were in his
home on March 3, and testified that
he never refused to allow them to
take a copy of the matters desired
by them.
The evidence of bot hparties was
in before o'clock and an adjourn
ment taken until this morning at 3
o'clock, when the attorneys will sum
up.
The evidence or both parties was
case: E. G. Atkins of Moretown, Ira
A. Edison of Montpelier, George
Gould of East Montpelier, E. E.
Brown Of Calais, d. o. Bruce of
Moretown, S. B. BloGgett of Cabot,
]. M. Bell, Jr., of Roxbury, Leon c.
Stewart of Berlin, George H. Bruce
Of Middlesex, ]. H. Somerville of
Fayston, L. H. Goodell of Woodbury.
Ii. J. Eastman of Cabot
The matter which the trustees de-
sired to look up was in reference TO
a permit granted to Leroy F. Fort
ney, to erect building near the road
way provided it was not to go onto
the road. 1t was claimed that the
structure was being built on a part
of the street and it was this matter
which the trustees desired to look
up and the people of Plainfield now
of all the trouble. Fortney also fig
| ures in two more cases that will be
| tried this term. In one he is the
plaintiff bringing action against
John Ryan and is the defendant in
the case of the State against Fort
ney for breach of the peace.
Fred L. Laird and H. e. Shurtleff
appear for the plaintiff and w. N
Theriault and J. w. Gordon for the
! defendants.
These cases have been entered;
| w. H. Martin vs.. Homer c. Young
apt, justice ejectment, e. L. Scott
for the plaintiff and NJ. M. Gordon
for the defendant
Minnie c. Wrisley VS.. Mark H
vrisley, divorce, Shurtleff for the pc
| titioner.
Montpelier Savings Bank VS.
George L. Learned ct al, chancery
Smile for orator
National Bank of Barre VS.. George
Libersont, general assumpsit, Hoar
for plaintiff.
Bailey and Morse VS.. u. W. Cooley
apt, Cory, Deavitt and Frost Com
pany, trustee. j. G. Wing for plain
tiff.
| Cardini and Prario VS.. Louis Cap
aralitti, apt, Union Granite Com
pany and Perry Granite Company
trustees. Bailey for plaintiff and
| Hoar for defendant.