News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1915-12-22

AZ thC tiniS vi going W press last WSSf
divorce cases were being heard. TIL
court disposed of them as follows -
Divorces
Beatrice B. Boynton v. Fern J. Boyn
ton. divorced last Juue, petitioner al
Gladys F. Bennett v. Harley o. Bennett
bill granted for intolerable severity pc
titioner given custody of minor child anc
$500 per month alimony.- Fleetwood
for petitioner.
granted for neglect and refusal to sup
port petitioner given custody of minor
children and SIS 90 per month almony.-
Fleetwood for petitioner.
Anna St. Jock v. Peter St. Jock, bill
granted for intolerable severity.-Fleet
wood for petitioner.
Arlie M. Cochran v. Ernest Cochran
bill granted for intolerable severity -
Fleetwood for petitioner.
| Mildred Maynard Y. Lee Maynard, bill
granted for intolerable severity.-Maurice
for petitioner.
Geo. West v. Matilda West, bill granted
for adultery.-Tracy for petitioner.
H. c. Parker v. Mamie E. Parker, bill
granted tor intolerable severity. Alimony
decreed to petitioner as per stipulation.
Fleetwood for petitioner Tracy for
petitionee.
White v. White
Thursday morning everything was in
readiness for the trial of the cases of Geo.
White v. Lizzie A. White and it was ex-
pected that a jury would be empannelled
for that purpose. However, at the open.
ing of court the attorneys for Mr.. White
raised the point that a hearing on the
petition of Mrs. White, asking for the re.
opening of the estate in the probate court
had been called for and heard without
the court giving Mr.. White notice of the
petition. This was argued pro and con
and Judge Fish finally dismissed the cases,
which means that they 60 to the supreme
court on the ground of lack of sufficient
notice Fleetwood, Maurice and Red
mond appeared for Mrs. White, and Bull
lard, Stickney and Brown for George E.
White. So much interest has been mani
tested in these cases that we give here
with in full the Judges remarks in dis
missing them. He said:-
In these cases which are numbered 1873
and 1874, the first case as l understand
it is an appeal by Geo. E. White from the
allowance of a claim of Lizzie A. White
against the Est. of Edwin c. White, and
No. 1874, which is an appeal by Geo. E.
White as Adm. of the Est. of Edwin c.
White from the allowance of the same
claim of Lizzie A. White against the Est,
of Edwin c. White. 1t appears in both
these cases that Commissioners upon the
Est. of Edwin {. White were appointed
according to law and filed their report
according to law with the Probate Court
of this District and that thereafter Lizzie
A. White, who was the widow of Edwin
c. White, made a petition to the Probate
Court asking to have the Commission
re opened. according to Sec. 1921 of the
Public Statutes as amended by No - of
the laws of 1908, and that in answer to
that petition the Probate Court, without
notice to the Adm, or to Geo. E. White,
who was the heir-at.law of Edwin c.
White, re-opened the Commission; follow
ing that, notice was given to Geo. E.
White that on certain day hearing
would be had on the claim of Lizzie A.
White against the Est of Edwin O. White
and that the Admr., Geo. E White, came
to Hyde Park and was in the Court
b uilding here while the Commissioners
had their meeting, at the time of their |
but did not appear, either in
person or by counsel. and upon allowance |
being made by the Commissioners of the |
claim presented by Lizzie A. White, to
the Probate Court Of this Dist, Geo. E.
White and Geo. E. White as Aomr OF the
said Whites estate, appealed to this Court
and in this Court the said White, and
White as Admr. raises the question of the
light of the Probate Court to renew the
Commission, upon the ground that the
statute contemplates that notice should
De given to the petitioner to have the
: commission re-opened, and that no such
notice having been given and it is con-
eded no such notice was given, all the
are void, and there is nothing
or this Court to do but to dismiss these
ases, for the reason that no notice was
yiyen to the Admr. or to Mr.. White of the
,endancy of the petition to have the Com
mission re-opeued. 5t
Counsel agree about what the facts are
the matter, and it is said by
hose representing Mrs. White here there
Ire several reasons why the claim made
n behalf of Mr.. White, personally, and as
Admr., are un.sound. One is, that the
aw contemplated there should be no