Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
Chauncey ne the jury. The jury was out on the case all and came in it was Friday Thursday morning night when only they to announce that they had been unable to Watson gave agree. Judge them them some out further instructions and sent to see if they could not come toon a verdict. But it was no again gether of just use and they returned once more before 12 o'clock, and the foreman then stated that there was no prospect that would be able to do so. They were discharged from they thereupon consideration that at of the case. It was understood the the stood nine In a for the young woman verdict end jury favor and three of in favor of a verdict for defendant Ackerman. One of the remaining cases set for the calendar was of the Farmer's trial Fish, on receiver jury Huldah Frank National Olin, L. bank of Vergennes, y. an to recover the on stock of the in the Joel H. a the trustee defendant, Baker of filed a demurrer to the assessment action For by land brought defendant's declaration amount bank name. held Rut- the of and that there was States statutes or any United argued nothing in other which gives a receiver of a bank any right or a as receiver under the common national statutes suit title to bring law no in and that there was law giving him such statute a state court, congress right. Mr. had Baker argued further that to pass laws of state courts. and practice no power regulating that eyen bring the if had a right and title to a suits at all, which he very the sult must be such receiver brought strongly in the courts. Receiver on contended that as hand, the the institution and he as receiver doubted, other federal local Fish, receiver bank have state the to bring such suits a authority was local a personage in did the than courts. It was a question of more ordinary importance, and some half had a dozen other cases which Mr. Fish brought as receiver of the Vergennes bank were dependent upon the decision. Judge Watson announced his decision on the reassembling of the court Monday The decision upheld Mr. afternoon. Baker's contention, the demurrer was sustained and the declaration adjudged insufficient. The case on the plaintiff's exceptions will go to the supreme court infor final edjudication of the question volved. Friday forenoon the case of Otto P. Moore V. Walter L. Forbes, appellant, and begun, with Ira H. LaFleur Mr. was H. Dayis of Middlebury as H. Moore's W. attorneys and Judge Wm. MiddleFrank W. Thomas of as counsel for Mr. for the plaintiff that he to the extent of about the of contract on the part damaged claimed bury Bliss breach and Forbes. had claimed, $200- of It been was defendant. a Forbes, the plaintiff of to cut and bind some 30 acres in the agreed mostly oats, for the plaintiff at any grain. of 1900, and to do the work that season the plaintiff should notify him howtime it done. The defendant. he not cut the grain some wanted did when for the ever, wanted it done, nor of later, in had nine the plaintiff claimed that plaintiff which days consequence that and he about one-fourth of his oats the straw lost oats harvested as well as in cutthe greatly injured by the delay it was were On the defendant's behalf to cut ting. that Forbes never agreed that the claimed grain on any particular day that he did the might choose, and as soon plaintiff matter of fact cut the grain Mr. as a could after being notified considering by as Moore he that he was ready. weather. rainy condition of the and the case continued through evidence Friday was This Saturday noon. The foreup to by 11 o'clock Saturday limited to side. Mr. completed noon and the arguments were Davis made an hour on each argument for the plaintiff the the opening followed by Judge Bliss for and was At the conclusion of Judge was defendant. plea at 11 :50 o'clock a recess afterBliss's until 2 o'clock on Monday not eng taken which time the jurors been exnoon. to in the case on trial had gaged cused on Friday afternoon. court , Upon the afternoon, re-convening Lawyer of the LaFleur in 1 closed Monday the argument for the Judge plaintiff WatV. Forbes case. the n recover d son plaintiff could was that the declaration, as n variance under his between the declaration them to the Moore thereupon informed not there bring jury and on o and directed Forbes g the proof, for defendant to be a verdict offset, the verdict a il his for declaration every acre in of grain that had they cut found for d $1 evidence defendant amount e from the with interest on the the jury in o plaintiff, After an hour's vedict deliberation for the defendant h $28.29 and his r. rs third civil 3 o'clock of rendered recover The a shortly jury case costs. before of the term Carl to p was started It was Clayton le Monday afternoon. A. Ballard and R. E e. V. Edson Owen, V. representing e ir e Brown and C. J. Russell of interests side of Burlington Burlington there the Carl I. H. LaFleur the Owen and more d th and the past three years between them and For bad blood Mr. Car ourt has quite been a little trouble. and asks Now for damage alleges
