Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1916-12-08
ADDISON COUNTY COURT,
Short Session Antielpated-Larae
Divorce Docket. Grand
Jury Discharged,

Jury Discharged,
The December term of the Addison
County court opened at the court house
in Middebury promptly at 10 o'clock on
Tuesday morning, Hon, Zed F. Stanton
of Roxbury is the presiding judge and
Hon. Henry r. Day Of Ripton and Hon,
Wilber f., Hanks of Bristol are the as
sistant judges,
There were only small number OF
out.of-town attorneys on hand for the
opening, many lawyers connected with
cases on the various dockets failing to
put in an appearance
Rev. David II, Corkran, pastor of the
Methodist church offered the opening
prayer, after which Sheriff Smith made
the customary proclamation for the
opening of court. The different dockets
were then called over to find out what
business there was to come before the
court.
The jury calendar was first looked
over and the eight cases thereon were
temporarily disposed of as follows;
| Norman S. Foote vs. George NJ Moore
appellant, special assumpsit, continued;
Ethel Reed VS. Gladys Shackett, SANDER
trial. village Of Bristol VS. the Bristol
Railroad company, appellant, and
trustee, special assumpsit continued
for the reason that similar case is now
awaiting the action of the State
Supreme court; Frederick +. Backus
and George w, Crockett VS. Allan
Calhoun, ejectment, trial; Charles b.
Kendall VS. c. f. Dickinson and l.. H.,
Brown, breach Of contract, passed;
Isabella Mclean, appellant, VS. William
A. SerilPs estate, passed and Charles
W. Evarts VS. Michael Mayhem, tort
transferred to the court calender,
Later it became doubtful whether
any of the cases marx ed for the trial
would actually come to trial The two
slander cases were soon taken out of the
trial list and entered continued for the
reason that Joseph c. Jones of Rutland,
cousel for plaintiff Reed, had gone to
Woodstock to attend the Windsor
county court.
There were only five cases on the
court calendar and these were disposed
of as follows: In re estate of Charles n
Hayward, Emma c. Eldredge, trustee,
Bose Lucia, Administrative, J. H.
Lucia 5 estate, trustee, appellant, APP
peal from probate court, marked for
hearing; Fred C. Smith VS. j. L..
Donglas, ejectment, hearing; Joseph b.
Cobb VS. A. II. and G. S. Her, breach
of contract, hearing; r. H. Hocomb VS.
Robert Allen, breach of contract set
tied and discontinued; and Allnson j.
Hurlburt VS. George Adams, same entry,
The divorce docket showed l9 cases,
all of which stand for hearings and the
criminal docket has seven, all of which,
with one exception will have to 90 over
for the reason that the respondents are
in parts unknown and thus beyond the
jurisdiction of the court. The seven
cases are: State vs. Fred Murphy,
keeping liquor with the intent to sell
contrary to law; State vs. Arthur Bur-
roughs, two cases for burglary and one
for breaking Jail; State VS. John L.
Wilmarth, assault with intent to kill;
State VS. Garlic Evarts, subornation of
perjury, and State VS. Wilbur Waite,
rape.
Most of the 10 cases on the chancery
docket were passed for the present on
account of the absence of the lawyers
engaged in them, or were marked con-
tinued. The case of John Purinton VS.
Nixon Thomas and Minnie Thomas was
transferred to the court calendar. In
the foreclosure case of Thomas and
Henry Calvin VS. William W. Williams
ct al, Frank w. Tuttle was appointed
special master and the case continued.
The following cases were entered
settled and discontinued: Marie Landon
vs. Clark H. and Jennie Winch, w. H.
Dean VS. Herbert A. Cuison ct al, w.
H. Dean vs. Adolphus j. Cuison ct al, C.
w. Ross vs. George Fred Haydens ad-
ministrator ct al, and Charles M.
Swift VS. j. H. LeBoeuf.
Many of the cases on the general
civil docket went over to the June term
and many others were passed. In the
case of Charles C. Fields administrator
VS. Wilbur Field, appellant, which has
been in court for several years, an order
was made that report be made by the
auditor before the next term or the
case would be dismissed In the cases
of French & Crosby VS. the Boston and
Maine Railroad company and A. P.
Needham against the same continuances
were entered for the reason that SINH
lar case is now before the United States
Supreme court for adjudication. In the
case of Frank Lavarn VS. Harro Jimmo
& Co Frank c. Archibald of Man