The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1918-05-08
JUDGMENT
WASLOWERED
Supreme Court Gave Globe
Granite Co. S176 in Mon
ument Case
MANY OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN
And the Supreme Court Has
Gone Considerably into
Docket Already

After the justices Of the Vermont su
preme court had read Is opinions Tues
day morning and afternoon they an
nounced decisions in four more cases
making total of % cases disposed of in
that manner. Added TO this, seven cases
were disposed of by conference of at
torneys, so that one of the heaviest day :
work in the first day of the term of court
occurred.
The first case for argument. namely, in
Bennington county, in regard to the es-
tate Of A. J, Barron, was submitted on
briefs, 80 that the remaining case in that
county was argued late in the afternoon,
in regard TO the estate of Margaret NJ.
Olds; and o-day the Rutland county
cases were taken up. each one of which
is set for hearing.
The following decisions were an.
nounced by the court: Rutland county,
p, r. Howley VS.. George T. Chaffee, de-
cree affirmed and cause remanded Chit.
tenden county, John S. Hehlon VS.. ]. f.
eastman, Judgment affirmed Verdict of
the lower court gave Heflion 1871 dam
ages. Washington county, A. T. Davis
VS.. Union Meeting House, will be re.
argued The arguments before were on
the demurrer but this time they will be
on the merits of the question, which is
relative to the line between the church
property and Mr. Davis land, Francis
B. Hutchins VS.. F. j. George, appeal from
Montpelier city court, Judgment affirmed
AT the afternoon session, the follow
ing opinions were read:
Washington eounty--Globe Granite
company VS.. Charles Clements, which
was to recover the price of a monument.
In the lower court, the judgment was for
1927 for the plaintiff. When the monu
ment was set in a New York cemetery,
crack was found and the purchaser of
the monument from Mr.. Clements re-
fused to accept the monument. Judg
ment for the larger sum, 1927, reversed,
and Judgment for the smaller sum, Sl76.
Hsselton, justice.
Grand Isle county-,Iames + Mcbride
VS.. Nettie kibbee and Neil {. McNall,
guardian of Clayton Kibbee. apt. This
action is question of settlement of the
rental of property. In the lower court
there was verdict for $3.50 and costs,
to which the plaintiff took exceptions
and brought the case to supreme court
Judgment affirmed. Taylor, Justice
Caledonia county Brightlook Hospital
association vs.. Stanley F. Garfield, to re
cover UlOUbH IOI care VI uPIeHlldub dlLti
injury of defendant, while employed by
the Passumpsic Telephone company The
defendant claimed Manager Merrill of
the company was holden and not Gar
field. which the court sustained giving
Judgment for the defendant. Judgment
affirmed. Miles, justice,
Chittenden county-City Savings Bank
4 Trust company of vicksburg, La. vs.. |
CaIiuo A Pal THE was a poza far col !
lection of face value of a note held by
third party Payments made to a Mr.. |
Aiken should have been applied upon the |
note. Decree affirmed. Let a new time !
for redemption be fixed. Powers, justice. |
Gibbs & Swartz, successors to Gibbs 4 |
Tobin, vs.. Estate of Anna F. Merrill, |
James A. Merrill, administrator, which |
is an appeal from commissioners in pro-
bate court over the construction of
windmill in which Judgment was in fa
vor of defendant in the lower court,
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Haselton, justice.
Orleans county-William A Wright
VS.. w. c. Lindsay. This case developes
out of the sale of an automobile in which
the plaintiff obtained verdict in lower
court of one cent damage, and it was
ordered that the defendant pay Sl52.75
with interest from Aug. u, 1910, to the
plaintiff, TO which the defendant took ex
ceptions. Judgment affirmed. Taylor,
justice.
Franklin county-H. F. Fadden VS.. {
Fannie f. Fsdden, G. G. Austin. w. R.
Austin and G. c. Holmes. which is an i
appeal from decree in probate court. i
This case involves woman's rights to ,
transfer property. Decree affirmed. t
Cause remanded. Miles, justice, {
Washington county-D. n. Mcdonald /
VS.. Frederick Mcneil, Fraudulent sale of /
land. 1t was held that the court made I
no error in overruling the defendants
motion for verdict nor in denying the !
motion to set aside the verdict. Judg {
ment affirmed. Powers, justice :