Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-04-17
FORMER ALDERMAN
SUES SALOON KEEPER
Edward J. Walker Claims to
Have Aided Joseph Mitchell in
Getting a License and That
Something Is Due Him for
Wages

A former alderman of the city. Ed
ward ]. walker, and the Keeper OF a
saloon. Joseph Mitchell. both well
known in this city, took up the legal
process in the form of a trial In Chit
tenden county court Tuesday to settle
81 matter of wages claimed by walker
while employed in Mitchell's saloon.
This was the first trial by jury at the
| present term of county court. Judge
| Sherman II. Moulton Is presiding The
iurymen appeared at nine o'clock In
the morning. and IL men were sworn
in for the case, which continued all
day.
The attorneys in the case ere M G.
Leary for walker. and Warren r, Aus
tin and ]. ]. Enright for Mitchell. The
Jury consists of e. s. Sibley of Milton
Edward Burnett of Williston. H. G.
Hathorne of Colchester, c. H. Jones of
Brookes avenue, Homer f. Bartram of
Colchester. Fred Holmes of Essex. B. c.
johnson of Williston, b. II. Mack of
Shelburne, d. j. Millham of South Bur-
lington, A. b. Small of Huntington.
George w Smith of Hinesburg and
Walter w. Palmer of Shelburne
1t is the claim of Mr.. walker that,
while he was an alderman in 1914.
Mitchell made an ageement with him
sell liquor, and it was claimed by the
plaintiff that such aid resulted in
Mitchell securing such license in 1914
and that a further agreement was then
made whereby Walker should spend his
spare time working for Mitchell In the
saloon, should furnish stable room for
and take care of Mitchelrs horses and
do odd jobs about the saloon. in return
for which he was to be paid the sum
IF
s2OO week for the stalls used by
Mitchell's horses. 1t is claimed that
Walker has not received the full
amount due him under these arrange
ments.
On the other hand, the defense claims
that no such agreement was ever made
with Walker, that Mitchell paid Walker
every cent that he had coming to him.
paying up each Saturday for the work
done during the week. Mitchell also
claims that Walker requested that the
horses be kept in the walker barn
(although Mitchell had barn of his
own where they could have been kept
because Walker had son working in
the saloon who had to go back and
forth the three quarters of a mile from
the house to the saloon, and it was
much easier for him II the horses were
kept at the Walker barn. Mitchell said
charge was to be made for the stall
room occupied, or he would have used
his own barn.
great deal Of conflicting testimony
was introduced, the chief witnesses
being the principals in the case. Walker
claimed that a dispute arose which
occasioned his dismissal from the en-
ploy of Mitchell in December. 1916, the
dispute being over selling to habitual
81
the law. It is alleged by Walker that
he refused to sell to such customers.
that Mitchell said that the business
could not be made to pay unless such
sales were made. that some sharp
words followed. and that Mitchell then
took his horses from Walkers barn
without warning, and told Walker to
keep away from the saloon
Mitchell denies this dispute with
Walker. and claims that he took his
horses away because they were not re-
oeiving the proper care. He says that
Walker then refused to give up the key
ing away the horses. and made the
statement that he (MitchelD would
have to go to law to get that key.
During the early part of the hearing
Attorney Austin for the defendan
brought out the point that thee is 6
law which forbids the service + an alder
man in any connection with saloon
and that therefore any contract mad'
between Mitchell and Walker Will,
Walker was an alderman Of the cit.
would be null and void and Walker coul,
collect nothing under it, On this point
Attorney Leary argued that the penalt.
in such a case would not fall upoI
Alderman Walker. but that If Mitchell
had hired Walker to work for him, know
Ing that he (Walker) was an aldermen
as 1t was claimed that he did, it wa
Mitchell who had broken the law in S
doing. and that Walker had the RICH
to compensation for his just services.
In this connection. the court ruled tina
claims made by Walker for service i
the saloon as a bartender or distribute
Of liquor while he was an alderman G
the city would be excluded from tn
case. but that other claims for servic
after his term as alderman had expired
| or his work as carpenter In and about tn
saloon at any time might be continued
Walkers term as alderman expired
| April. 1916, and he claims to have worke
for Mitchell until some time in Decembe
1916.
There was considerable discussio
about dates. very few of them beln
definitely agreed upon, and there we
more trouble about the amounts airead
paid Walker by Mitchell. Much sire,
was laid by the defense upon the date
on which the two horses owned h
Mitchell were bought and placed
Walkers barn. and when they were r
moved. To more definitely fix thei
dates. two other witnesses besides Il
principals in the case were called to Il
stand during the latter part OF the afte
noon. These were Frank E. Gohlke
Il North Champlain street. foreman
the National Biscuit company In tn
city. who testified to a conversation wi
Walker in which the latter asked hi
not to buy any more liquor from Mitch'
and this being after Mitch,
and Walker had had their difficult
Edward Bessette, laborer. testf
briefly regarding the sale Of a horse
Mitchell, in order that another da