Roland E. Stevens v. George Bowker

• Decision Date: 08 November 1919
• Citation: 108 A. 347,93 Vt. 480
• Parties: ROLAND E. STEVENS v. GEORGE BOWKER
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

108 A. 347

93 Vt. 480

ROLAND E. STEVENS v. GEORGE BOWKER

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 8, 1919

October Term, 1919.

ACTION OF TORT for trespass against real estate. Plea, the general issue. Trial by Hartford Municipal Court, A. G. Whitham Judge. Judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.

Judgment affirmed.

Hugh Moore for the defendant.

Roland E. Stevens, pro se.

Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, MILES, and SLACK, JJ.

OPINION

TAYLOR

This is an action of tort brought to the Hartford municipal court for the wilful and malicious injury of premises owned by the plaintiff and occupied by the defendant as a tenant. The plaintiff had judgment on the facts found by the court, and the defendant brings up exceptions.

The cause was submitted without argument. Upon inspection of the papers, it is discovered that the copies furnished the Court do not conform in several particulars to our rule respecting the preparation of the case. See Rule 5 of Supreme Court. None of the papers are printed and leave was not asked to substitute typewritten copies. Moreover, the copies furnished do not contain much that is necessary to present the questions raised. The exceptions refer to certain motions affidavits, requests for findings, and the findings and rulings of the court, which the judge directs need not be printed provided copies thereof are furnished this Court on the hearing. But such an order does not relieve the excepting party from compliance with our rules. The trial court has no authority to set aside, or take a case out of, the rules of this Court. While we do not in this case dismiss the exceptions because not properly presented, we deem it advisable to make these observations for the future guidance of litigants.

The defendant urges that the court erred in overruling certain motions designated by Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive. It appears from an inspection of the files that the first was a motion for leave to withdraw a general appearance and to appear specially for the purpose of moving to dismiss the action because the writ was not legally served and because it issued without security to the defendant by way of recognizance, as required by law; the second, a motion to dismiss the action because the writ was not legally served; the third, a motion to abate the writ for want of recognizance as required by law; and, the fourth, a motion by the bail on the writ that the writ abate for reasons like those stated in the second and third motions, and that the bail be discharged from liability.

The court did not err in overruling the several motions. The writ, which issued as a capias, was in all respects regular on its face. It was served by arresting the body of the defendant. The service was by an indifferent person, duly authorized so far as the writ discloses. One Jennie Hutchins became bail by indorsing the writ as such. On the return day of the writ the defendant entered a general appearance. The cause was continued from time to time until it had been in court for more than six months. On the eve of the trial the defendant filed, among others, the motions involved here supported by...