Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1916-06-23
ADDISON COUNTY COURT

lthllInOny lpI lnp plhlHtlHb ~ WV
Bristol case of The Vermont Box Com
pany VS.. Wilbur Il, Hanks was con-
tinued in the county court up TO FRI
day afternoon of last week, when a re-
cess was taken until 2 O'Clock Monday
afternoon. The evidence consisted
largely in the introduction of old deeds,
maps, surveys, town clerks records,
etc, with oral testimony in explanation
of the same, all these goings TO show
the location and boundary lines of the
land in dispute,
The plaintiffs on Tuesday morning,
after a motion made by them that the
jury should travel up TO Huntington to
overlook the scene of contention, had
been overruled by the court rested their
main case and the introducing Of testi-
mony for the other side, with Judge
Hanks, the defendant, as their first
witness, was begun at 10 o'clock,
IL had been contended by the Box
Company that the deed from Judge
Hanks to them called for about 100
acres of land and that surveys showed
that the strip of land fell far short of
that many acres The defendant claimed
that the patch of land he had sold the
company was made up ofvarious parcels
which he had purchased from various
parties at different times, and that none
of the deeds tohim specified any partic-
ular number of acres. He testified that he
had told the purchasers that he did not
know how many acres there were in the
land, but Judged that there were from
1900 to 1900 acres and that with that
understanding the figures 100 acres,
more or less, had been inserted in the
deed He insisted that from oral
conversations between himself and the
plaintiff company, held before the deed
was drawn, the plaintiffs very well
knew that he was uncertain as to the
exact number of acres and that the 100
was only inserted tentatively.
Michael Quinlan of Lincoln followed
Mr.. Hanks and was an important wit
ness for the defendant, Mr., Quinlan
had been for many years in the employ
of Judge Hanks and has also been for
years in the employ of the Thomas
brothers, Thorp and Ford who now
compose the box company, and who,
like the defendent, are residents of
Bristol. Mr. Quinan was familiar with
the territory which forms the bone of
in the case and detailed the
situatian of the disputed land and gave
estimates of the quantity Of timber Of
various kinds standing thereon. His
testimony took up the greater part Of
the afternoon session.
j. b. Porter, a Burlington surveyor,
was on the witness stand nearly all day
and gave testimony explain
ing chart which he had made of the
premises in the interest Of the defence
Some of the jurors on the case, who
were drawn on the panel Immediately
after being discharged from the case
which preceded it, began to look tired
by Wednesday. The members of the
panel are John Aines of Whiting, j. c.
S. Hamilton and Frank E. Towner of
Bristol, Ransom Billings of New Haven,
Timothy Billings of Ripton, W. j.
Whitney of Salisbury, b. s. Hagar of
Goshen, Richard H. Preble of Shore
ham, John d. Vinton of Granville,
William Dernng of Addison, Newell
Stokes of Starksboro and Fred Null |
freidel of Waltham.
At the opening Wednesday morning
the case of Frank Larrow VS.. Henry |
Jimmo & Co. was taken up. Judgment |
to account was ordered and the case
was referred to an auditor to be named |
later.
The rebuttal testimony in the case on
trial was all got in before the adjourn
nent Wednesday evening and both sides
then rested their cases. The arguments
we're begun the first thing Thursday
morning, Judge Button leading off for
he plaintiffs and claiming that the
testimony showed that the defendant
lad sold to the Box Company, among
'ther lands, strip of land which &C
'oroing to some surveys contained 100
lcres and according to others only S719
.cres ; but that at any rate the defend
mt had sold land which he didn't own
nd for the resale of which to other
,arties the plaintiffs had to reimburse
he purchasers to the extent of Sl400,
nd it was claimed that the standing
pruce on the land at the time of the
ale by Judge Hanks was worth S2400,
0 recover which amount the suit was
rought.
Judge Donoway followed with the
pening plea for the defendant and con-
reverted in turn the points made by
Judge Button, claiming that the guam
ity of land which the plaintiffs actually
ct was within reasonable distance of
he 1900 acres, more or less" called
or in the deed, and that they had made s
handsome profit of $4,000 on their in I
estment. He was followed by Rufus
!. Brown of Burlington, who made the
losing argument for the defendant. /
Ohm W. Redmond of Newport came
ext for the plaintiffs. d