Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1915-10-07
VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS
Jury Finds That Curtises Owe Nothing
to Farm Agency,


The Jury in the county court case Of the
e. A. Strout Farm Agency VS. Joseph w.
and Elizabeth Curtis decided after a half
hours elaboration Thursday morning
that the defendants had not contracted
with the plaintiffs agent in the manner
and form alleged and returned a verdict
for the defendants. C. H. Hunt Of Essex
was foreman Of the jury. II was said by
the attorney for the plaintiff that the case
might be taken to the supreme court on
exceptions.
The following Jury was drawn for tho
case of the Porter Screen Manufacturing
company VS.. the Central Vermont Rail-
way company: Charles p. Dion. Burlng-
ton: F. H. Higley, Huntington; ]. F. Jor-
dan. Jericho; f. A. Lewis. Cha rlotte; VIII
liam f. Martin. Huntington; c. L. Page.
Shelburne: W. NJ. Petit. Underhill: George
H. Shepard. South Burlington; Q. e.
Thurston. Jericho: Seldom Tomlinson, Boil
ton: Heman H. Wheeler, South Burlng-
ton and F. c. Mccarthy, Essex
This was a suit to recover the
value of carload OF screen doors and
windows which were shipped by the plain
tin company from Winooski to New York,
over the Central Vermont and New York
Central lines, and were destroyed by fire
while in the New York Central yards at
Troy. n. Y. 1t was alleged that their de-
struction was causel by the negligence
Of the defendant company
A final decree was granted the petitioner
by Judge Miles, In the divorce case Of
Fanny s. Cary VS.. George F. Cary. on
the ground of, intole-able severity. with
leave TO resume her former name Of Fanny
Clerkins.
Immediately after court convened
Thursday NJ. G. 1eary presented the
argument Of the defendants in the case
OF the E. A. Strout Agency VS.. Joseph w.
and Elizabeth Curtis, which was n suit to
recover commission of 1895 alleged to be
due the plaintiff from the defendants for
the sale of their property at the time they
purchased a farm at Malletts Bay through
the agency and for which their property
was taken in part payment. Mr.. Leary
said that the defendants in dealing with
the agents OF the Strout agency. who were
also agents for Rice. were in the same
position as though they had dealt direct
ly with Rice and therefore owed them no
commission. He also advanced the rule
Of law that an agent for one man cannot
accept a commission from another man
with whom he deals In the interest of his
first principal unless both principals know
of the same and make no objection TO II.
Charles Il. Adams of Waterbury then
made the closing argument for the plain
tiff. giving brief review Of their side of
the case
Judge Miles in his charge to the Jury
said that there was but one question for
them to decide. namely. whether or not
the defendants had employed tho Strout
agents to sell or exchange their property
Tor the property then owned by Mr.. Rice,
and whether such an exchange had been
made by the agents for the defendants.
If they should find in the affirmative then
they should return verdict for the
plaintiff to recover 1896: II In the negative,
then tho verdict should be for the defend.
ants. The jury retired at 1920 and return
cd verdict for the defendants half-hour
later. The court then took a recess until
two O'Clock in the afternoon
After the drawing Of the jury in the
case OF the Porter Screen Manufacturing
company vs.. the Central Vermont Rail-
way company, and their dismissal until
FRIDAY morning. Judge Miles
listened to the reading Of the dispositions
OF several witnesses in the case who live
In New York and could not be present for
the trial, In order that he might rule on
what evidence might be presented to the
jury. This occupied the entire afternoon
session.