Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-10-09
SUPREME COURT CONvENEs
Some DectsiOns MISUNDERSTANDING ton
street Com missioner Cases Not
Ready for ArEument

Montpelier. Oct. THE October term
of Supreme Court convened at 10 o'clock
Tuesday morning Chief Justice John
H. Watson presiding and the full bench
of associate justices attending Rev.
Charles St. John of Montpelier offered
prayer and Deputy Sheriff H. c. Law
son made the proclamation opening
court. Deputy Sheriff II. ]. Slayton and
Deputy George w Bulkeley will be in
charge of the court room during the
session. Sheriff Tracy and the regular
deputies being busy in the Long muir
der trial in Washington county court.
The following decisions were an
nounced as result of the calling Of
the dock ct Rutland county. Maud Bel
anger administrator of estate of Felix
Dernier VS. Rutland Railway, Light and
Power company. discontinued; Gale
donia county. Lake Erie and Western
Railroad company VS. E. r. Fletcher and
trustees, discontinued.
Considerable argument took place be-
tween attorneys In the case of Trasi
VI Karrick of Chittenden county. n.
s. Peck claiming he, had not been able
to prepare the case. while j. f. Mckay
urged argument. claiming that the suit
has been dragging out Tor seven years
e. II Deavitt offered to make a mo-
ton for affirming judgment of the
bo~rer court. The case involved s11. 500
and was continued.
The Burlington Street Commission
ers' cases were not ready for argu-
ment and were continued These are
Doian VS. jackson; Bergeron VS. Jack
son; and Dolan ct al VS. Unsworth ct
al. These developed out of the street
commissioners Of that city refusing 10
release their authority to handle at.
fairs of the city.
motion for a continuance OF the Addi-
son county case Of Vermont vs. Thomas
Fletcher. adultery. was made and II
is probable that the case will he continued
owing TO various reasons
Charles Batchelder and Sumner Darling
gave the attorneys an entertainment In an
argument relative to Holton VS.. Hasson
in Washington county court. Mr. Darling
urged immediate progress. Mr.. Batchel-
der claimed that the case was continued
the last time because Darling was in serv-
ice but almost Immediately after the court
adjourned that Darling wrote him urging
immediate progress. In view Of the con-
duct Of Darling in asking for a continu-
ance soon after the last order Batchelder
urged continuance at this time or the
case be submitted on briefs The last
named action was directed by the court,
The case Of State VS.. Frank c. Williams
will not be argued this term because the
transcript of evidence, some 500 pages
has only recently been furnished and as
il is part of the case there has not
been time 10 prepare the exceptions with
the result that the case is continued
A motion TO affirm the Judgment Of
the lower court in the case of Lowell
VS.. estate of Aaron Wheeler will be
! fed in Washington county case An
agreement for similar order has been
made in the Caledonia county case of
Curtis VS.. estate of Wetherbee There
were several other minor entry orders
but most of the cases are for hearing.
Opinions were read and orders made as
follows
Windham county: Edward j. Lavelle.
adm estate OF Peter Lavelle. VS.. Central
Vermont Railway company, Judgment re-
versed and cause remanded. Iudgmen,
for defendant to recover its costs
Essex county. Essex Storage & Electric
Co VS. Victory Lumber company, judg-
ment. order OF the lower court affirmed
and cause remanded.
Franklin county: Max and Minnie
Nichols VS. Central Vermont Railway
company, judgment affirmed The de-
PENDANT received verdict In the lower
court