Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-01-11
SUPREME COURT
HEARS HOTEL WAR
Case of Powell vs.. Woodburys
Reviewed in Arguments at
Montpelier Friday.

JbUI1Pu tnI- tfl ioi tit january
term. The Orange county case of Henry
Emerson. by next friend, vs.. Cory Deav-
itt-Frost company of Montpelier. which Is
with the court was brought to attention
by NJ. NJ Gordon Of the plaintiffs coun-
sci, who cited the case which was for
personal damages and in which the lower
court awarded over $500 to Emerson Mr.
Gordon said 1t had come to his attention
that j.. II. Deavitt. counsel for the COM
pany, lad settled with Emerson in ;his
city last Saturday night for sl.0o, and
that Emerson. WHO Is nearly blind. was
not represented by his counsel or friends,
nor were the counsel notified. He desired
the stipulation he dismissed or a commits
sion appointed TO investigate. ard on re-
urest Of Counsel Smith OF the other side.
Mr.. Gordon 1as given ii DAYS TO file his
motion. the opposing counsel 10 days
thereafter to answer and tho court gave
them the right TO name II commission
which may ne appointed by the court at
the next term In FebrrAyy
POWELL VS.. wOoDEURys
The Chittenden county case Of VI i.
Powell. Tr.. VS.. Charles l.. Woodbury. and
Edward i. Woodbury.. was heard this
afternoon. NJ. T.. Powell aud John w
Redmond Of Newport representing Mr.
Powell. and r. f. Brown OF Burlington
representing the Woodburys. The hotel
war which has wagcd in the Queen city
was brought t. Montpelier. and the argl,-
rnents on both sides were somewha,
heated. The lower court verdict was 70,
the plaintiff to recover 500 and costs.
Ernr,,
was an action for malicious prosecution
oI suit in chancery in which Geor.,,
NJ. Delaney and the Woodburys were tn.
orators. The trouble complained OF wa,
an Injunction that was issued preventine
the plaintiff in this case from selling a
auction the Hotel burlington propcrtv
Up to May s. 1904. c. NJ DELANEY IN.
owned the property and on that date h,
executed t. the plaintiff n deed Of tn,
property in trust for the benefit OF him
self and creditors. The plaintiff =!
trustee took charge of the hotel an,
operated i, until it was destroyed by FIR.
January To- 1910
On March :. 1910. the aforesaid Delann,
executed to r. F.. Brown an option ~
the property in which he agreed to sci
to Mr.. Brown the Hotel Burlington pron
ertN. ON that day. Mr.. Brown assigne,
the option to the Woodhurys Under tn.
option Delaney agreed to convey tn,
property in 60 days for $4,000 cash Marcel
- he executed a quitclam OF all his in
terests in the property. Sometime prio
to March % a result Of an interview
at the Van Ness at which the two Wood
burys. NJ l.. ~owell and Mr.. Brown wer,
present. the plaintiff advertised the prop
ertN for sale at auction. The iniunctio,
was served on him the day before thu
auction. May the chancerv suit wa
dismissed. which dissolved the Injunction
| Damages arc claimed in the reduction -
value Of the property,
MIR. Brown claimed that when Delane,
| decided the property To ~ l.. Powell n
! trustee he still owned m equitable inter
est and could therefore convey to tn
\ Woodburys or others
Mr.. Powell argued for the plaintiff H.
| said Mr.. DelaneY's unsecured indebted
| ness amounted to $1,000 when he had bee,
! given to understand IL was Si,,No. and n
! advanced from his own pocket 5000 (
settle with all creditors who would &C
| ccpt - cents on the dollar. NJ Delane
got all IN. benefit Of the settlement De
laneN made an agreemcn, with Mr. Pow
ell that the latter should carry on or SO
the hotel as he saw it. and Delaney ha
| no right to convey the property to SON.
one else. The business increased unde
| M. Poweli's MANAGEMENT. he said unit
II WAS securing 6" per cent. Of the com
mercial business Of Burlington when tn
fire came and was real competitor /
the Van Ness. Immediately after the fir
! Mr. Powell announced that a new hot,
| would rise "PhoeniX-likc from the asnr
Of the old"
we admit" he said that Covcrno
Woodbury. and his sons have a right To d
anything proper to prevent competition
In this instance their action was M
proper Not only did they not want III
property AT all but they wanted 10 pr,
Vent anyone else from getting il. Just a
soon a. the new hotel was started on al
other site their interest in this property
question ceased. Mr.. Brown told me Il
| Woodburys were not interested when
a! KIDD him for the names Of the parti'
who desired the option. had enoeavore
to compose "A syndicate o. such men
Elias Lyman. f. T.. Burgess and T..
Booth to offer Delaney $4,000 for II
ruins for the new syndicate Mr.. Brown
option was for $4,000. Mr.. Delans
thought J. s Viles OF Montpelier or son
other outside party was behind the optic
r or would no, have made II to his old con
petitors .hc Woodhurys Delaney VI
simply the pawn OF the Woodburys
draw their chestnuts from the fire. The
b was nothing farer than public auction
the Woodburys cared to bid for the pro
|. crty, Their only desire was litigation
tie up the property. When they saw Il
new hotel was being erected they made
reconveyance to Delaney even hcfol
\ their outiou eXpired. "