Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Story
December 12, 1910
The Barre Daily Times
Barre, Washington County, Vermont
What is this article about?
In St. Johnsbury, Vermont, the Caledonia County Court tried the trespass case of Lee vs. Follensby & Peck over unauthorized timber cutting. Plaintiff Edward Lee claimed defendants exceeded purchased rights; defense argued irrevocable license via brother's consent without deed.
Clipping
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
TRESPASS CASE IN COURT.
That of Lee vs. Follensby & Peck Brings
Out Interesting Point.
St. Johnsbury, Dec. 12.-The first week
of Caledonia county court closed Saturday
at noon with the trespass case of
Lee vs. Follensby & Peck still under
process of trial. The plaintiff took nearly
three days in which to introduce his
evidence, closing Friday noon. Several
witnesses testified tending to show that
the defendant company had cut the timber
in question substantially as the
plaintiff claimed, with possibly some
further cutting of some cedar trees
which it was averred by the plaintiff
were not sold to the defendants.
In the opening for the defence Mr. Howe
stated to the jury that the defendants
would attempt to show that Edward
Lee, the plaintiff, who was a tenant in
common with his brother, Albert Lee,
consented to the sale of the timber which
his brother made although he did not
sign the deed; that in an action of trespass
it is not necessary to prove deed;
that the timber was not as valuable
as the plaintiff claimed; that the aforesaid
brothers made no complaint about
it until most of the timber had been
cleared off. In substance the defendants
claim was that they were operating under
an irrevocable license under a grant.
That of Lee vs. Follensby & Peck Brings
Out Interesting Point.
St. Johnsbury, Dec. 12.-The first week
of Caledonia county court closed Saturday
at noon with the trespass case of
Lee vs. Follensby & Peck still under
process of trial. The plaintiff took nearly
three days in which to introduce his
evidence, closing Friday noon. Several
witnesses testified tending to show that
the defendant company had cut the timber
in question substantially as the
plaintiff claimed, with possibly some
further cutting of some cedar trees
which it was averred by the plaintiff
were not sold to the defendants.
In the opening for the defence Mr. Howe
stated to the jury that the defendants
would attempt to show that Edward
Lee, the plaintiff, who was a tenant in
common with his brother, Albert Lee,
consented to the sale of the timber which
his brother made although he did not
sign the deed; that in an action of trespass
it is not necessary to prove deed;
that the timber was not as valuable
as the plaintiff claimed; that the aforesaid
brothers made no complaint about
it until most of the timber had been
cleared off. In substance the defendants
claim was that they were operating under
an irrevocable license under a grant.
What sub-type of article is it?
Historical Event
Crime Story
What themes does it cover?
Justice
Deception
What keywords are associated?
Trespass Case
Timber Dispute
Court Trial
License Claim
Consent Without Deed
What entities or persons were involved?
Edward Lee
Albert Lee
Follensby & Peck
Mr. Howe
Where did it happen?
St. Johnsbury, Caledonia County Court
Story Details
Key Persons
Edward Lee
Albert Lee
Follensby & Peck
Mr. Howe
Location
St. Johnsbury, Caledonia County Court
Event Date
Dec. 12
Story Details
Trespass trial where plaintiff Edward Lee accuses defendants Follensby & Peck of cutting timber beyond purchased rights, including unsold cedar. Defense claims Edward consented to brother's sale without signing deed, operating under irrevocable license; no complaint until most timber cleared.