Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1911-03-03

fish and game warden in the county or
town in which the deer was wounded or
killed. The said report shall state the
time and place of the woundng or kill
ing and the amount of crop destroyed by
the deer. n person who shall kill deer
as above, shall Immediately properly
dress the carcass and care for the meat
of the same, and shall receive pay for
his necessary expenses in connection
herewith. 1t shall be the duty of the
county or deputy fish and game warden
who receives a notice of the killing or
wounding of deer to Immediately investi-
gate the case and satisfy himself that
the deer has been killed in accordance
with this act He shall give to the per-
son caring for the carcass of any deer
killed under these circumstances, a GER
tfcate of the amount of necessary ex-
penses in connection Herewith, which GER
tfcate shall be forwarded to the fish and
game commissioner who, after approving
the same, shall forward to the auditor
of accounts and the auditor of accounts
shall then draw an order in favor of
such person to the amount stated in such
certificate"
1t is provided in the second section
that a person neglecting to notify the
county warden within six hours after
deer has been killed as provided in sec
ton l, or shall neglect to properly dress
and care for the meat, shall be fined
$lUD LOT edcn OlIenSe.
1t was not generally known that such
law existed, and the attorneys We're
proceeding under the old law, which i'm
posed a fine for killing a deer except in
the open season. When the new law
came to light it was seen that there was
no longer any chance to make a test
case under the old law and the whole
situation was changed.
The cases against Messrs. Brown,
| Streeter and Carruth came before Judge
/ Daley Wednesday morning and n large
| crowd gathered, widespread interest
having been aroused. No statement of
fact was submitted but Mr.. Fits de-
INJURED to the complaints made out by
| Mr.. Barber. In other words he admitted
| the facts alleged, but denied that they
| were sufficient to constitute a good cause
| of action in law. He argued that the
| states declaration was not sufficient be-
| cause II did not alege that the killing
| was done when the deer was not doing
| damage. Mr. Barber argued that 1t was
| not necessary to make such an allega-
| ton as it was up to the respondents to
prove that the deer was not doing dam
| age when killed. Both sides wished to
| submit authorities and Judge Daley con-
| tinued the hearing until March Is at 10
| a. m, when the demurrer will be dis
| posed of. If it Is sustained the state
will ask leave to amend the declaration.
If it is overruled the respondents will
| take the case direct to the supreme court
| TO have the question determined there,
| The Prouty case was continued, await
| ing the disposition of the other cases
| 1t will be tried before Justice f. ]. Wat
| erman Judge Daley being disqualified
| because the firm of Chase & Daley is
counsel for Prouty in other matters.
| 1t is the claim of the state that the
deer was killed Friday morning and that
it lay where 1t was shot until afternoon
when a team drew 1t away, the carcass
| being concealed under blankets. The
state also will claim that the respondents
did not conduct themselves according tC
law after the killing, with respect to the
requirement that the county warden be
notified within six hours. One of the
| states contentious Is that no notice Of
the killing. except through the states
officers, was given to Warden Howard
until Saturday afternoon. after the war
rants were served, when the state as
serts Mr.. Howard was given the informa
ton by Mr. Brown. 1t is understood tina
the killing of more than one deer Is in
| Volved.
Some interesting exhibits would have
| been offered had the cases been tried
| Wednesday, and doubtless they will b'
offered when the cases reach that stag
where testimony is taken.