The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-04-18
WANT SPECIFICATIONS.
In Bill for Wiring Rowland Block in
Barre.


In Washington county court yesterday
afternoon there was hearing on the
ease of Rowland Pros. and Cave VS.. !.
Barre Savings Bank & Trust comps
and Green Mountain Electric company
over the bill for wiring the Rowland
building in Barre for electric lights. The
cost of the wiring was $4,000, part Of
which amount has been paid, and the
orators ask that the Green Mountain
Electric company be ordered to set forth
the claims to the amount OF 81 ,493.50 and
that the orators be discharged with
proper costs.
A divorce has been granted Mary III.
Iundy from Hodges Lundy, and the
cross-bill has been discontinued. The
custody OF the minor child has been de-
creed to the libellee with the stipulation
that the child shall not be taken out Of
the jurisdiction OF the court without per-
mission of the court or OF a superior
court Judge, while Mrs. Lundy is to
have the privilege of seeing the child
at any and all reasonable times.
The ease of Cynthia j. Spencer VS.. Ira
ID. Spencer, an action in contempt of
court by the appellee in. neglecting to
pay alimony in accordance with the or
der of the court was heard yesterday
and was then taken under consideration.
1t was the contention of the defending
attorney that Mr., Spencer was not able
to pay the alimony, as his pension check
has to 20 for his own living expenses.
The other side contended that he has
other property and is not entirely de-
pendent on his pension money.
The court announced that hearings
must be had in the following cases next
term or petitions will be dismissed: Bet
sey ID. Dudley vs.. o. P. Dudley; Carrie
!. Crowley vs.. 7. NJ. Crowley; Flora b.
Bancroft VS.. C. DEF Bancroft; Louis
Perry ys. Margaret Perry; Jennie y.
Pike vs.. Martin L. Pike.
The following cases were dismissed:
Ruth $, McKeefe vs.. Harry Z. McKeefe;
Genula Panera VS.. Carlo Panera; Mary
Jane Clark vs.. Alex Clark.
Many cases have been discontinued as
follows Rydale Remedy company VS..
G.. Fl. kendrick & company; George G.
May vs.. G.. f. and G. W. Eddy: W.. F.
Minard vs.. F. c. Luce ]. NJ. Huse vs.
city OF Montpelier appeal dismisscdl
James p. Smith VS.. Central Vermont;
Odelle Gilbert vs. ID. Puerello; w 4. and
i. C. Maxlam vs. Arthur Markham; Nell
lie NJ Gill w. z. O. Stone and Others
and f. O. Stone VS.. Nellie Gill; +. G.
Gitehell ys. NJ. NJ Cory; Albert Johon-
nett vs. j. NJ. Atkins and trustees; Stur-
tevant. Merrick company vs.. 0delle Gil
bert, Judgment per stipulation on file on
payment Of Judgment fee.
In re estate of Mary "A. Spaulding,
S. f. Wing, executive apt. dismissal case
on the docket Is years: w. II. Buchan-
an vs.. Annie Rivers; William Murray
VS.. H. M. Farnham; Wesley G. McAllis-
ter vs.. James and Arthur Mccullough;
Barre Granite company vs.. George Walk
er; Consolidated Lighting company vs..
c. r. Scott 4 company; Barre Savings
bank VS.. G. r. Scott company. Harry
Mcintosh VS.. Nellie George; G. Lihersont
VS.. A. Anderson & company; Plainfeld
VS.. Marshfeld; Laura NJ. Getcheil VS..
Dora Stone: d. X. Lille VS.. w L. jack
son; Blanchard vs.. Realty company and
Keefe; Cavanaugh brothers VS.. Blake.
1t is expected that the court viii take
the Turley case under consideration next
to determine whether a date
for re.trial shall be set and also to
determine whether the respondent can
be admitted to bail, it being capital
case.
The jury has been recalled for next
Tuesday afternoon to permit of the trial
Of the case of Pixley US. Consolidated
Lighting company, a flowage case.