The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1917-10-09
Although Legislature May
Have Granted Au-
thority
COURT
HOLDS -oINION
William j. Jon Z Had Sued
Samuel and .S.a Hoag-
Other c. st Orders

Justice John s. Watson in supreme
court this morning read an opinion in the
case OF William j. Jones VS.. Samuel
Hoag and Ida c. Hoag in Grand Isle
county. This case was argued last
Thursday upon two grounds, relative to
the constitutionality of No. 25S of the
acts of 1915 of Vermont and whether the
act as granted gave the plaintiff the sole
right to operate a ferry between Rouses
| Point, n. Y, and Windmill Point, VT
1t was a reargument of the case. In the
| opinion the court set forth many cases
decided similarly to the way in which
the justices had decided this one, which
was favorable to the defendant, and
holding that Jones does not have the sole
authority to operate ferry between
the points named
The case was bill and Injunction to
restrain the defendants from operating a
ferry between the points given Jones
had been given authority by the legisla-
ture. The order in the case was; Decree
reversed, and cause remanded, with the
direction that this demurrer be sustained
The bill was adjudged insufficient. This
is an important case to the people living
in Grand Isle county because of the fact
that several ferry rights have been
granted by the legislature in that county
in recent years and points in this case
may have bearing upon the franchises
of some of the other ferry rights.
Several cases which were set for trial
this term were continued this morning,
including the Orange county case of
State VS.. Stevens; Chittenden county
cases, Hill VS.. the Burlington Traction
company, McGraw VS.. Eldred, Swartz VS..
Merrill, Powell VS.. Merrill, White vs.
White; Washington county, Russ vs.
Good
In the Washington county case Of
Charles Bailey against Wetmore & Morse
Granite company, in which an opinion
was handed down last week in favor of
the defendant, S. H. Jackson moved that
the decision be certified Immediately back
to the lower court that the case might be
tried this term. f. NJ Harvey opposed
this motion on the grounds that there
had been no delay on the part of the de-
PENDANTS at any time in the case but that
any delay which has occurred has been
on the part of the plaintiff, that it would
take the defense some time to prepare
their case for a new trial, because they
would not rely solely upon their excep-
tions as they did before and that he did
not think it good policy to form a prece-
dent when no delay has been shown in
The handling of the case. The court took
he motion under consideration.
A motion for judgment affirmed in the
,ase of NJ. del Campo against NJ. Err
Dosco ct al was argued, but it was stated
hat the defendant would be able the
asst of this week TO pay the damages of
;22S.23 and the matter is under advise
nent between attorneys.
The first case argued this morning was
he Caledonia action of Helen Whitaker
,s Fred Whitaker. This is a divorce
ase in which the lower court refused
iivorce and the case came to supreme
ourt on an appeal. The plaintiff was 10
ears old when married, while the de-
endant was 81.
In the Chittenden county case of Rey
olds vs.. Field motion for Judgment
ffirmed was made, while the case of
'ook and Norton VS.. Town of Sutton
,as submitted on briefs and assigned to
ustice Taylor.
Arguments were started this forenoon
the case of Max L. Powell VS.. i. I.
Ioore, the case being claim alleged
v the plaintiff as hotel keeper.