Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1844-12-13
COURT RECORD.
Daaiei Fisher, Er, &c Of IdunaA Ho1and, vs.. Pardon
n, Kinbau and Others

n. Kinbali and Others.
This was case Of contested-Wil appealed from
the Probate Court and excited great interest," both from
the amount Of property involved and the character OF
the questions at issue The Testatrix was the widow
of Daniel Fisher. one of the first setlers Of Newanc,
who died leaving large property to his widow and fun
y. In 1884, the widow and present Testatrix married
DR.. Holland. Soon aner an agreement made be-
tween the parties and executed by them by which Dr..
Holland released all claim to- and right Of control over
the property Of his wife, had authorized her dispose
Of II she ct, and the property In fact pla-
ced in the hands Of Daniel Fisher OF the testax,
to manage trustee for her. and continued until her
death. In 1889 the tesatrx directed to have the Will
in question drawn up and she executed il, Dr. Holland
first executing written license consent that she
might execute IT, BY the Will, the plaintiff is made
the principal legatee and the hes-at-law contest ts
validity, upon several gronnds-that at the time Of
cutting the will the testarix not Of sound mind
that it obtained by the fraud and undue Influence
Of the plentif-that at the time Of executing the Ii
cense mentioned, DIR. Holland not Of sufficiently
sound mind land that married women cannot execute
wills.
Considerable testimony introduced for the pur-
pose Of showing that the time of executing the will
and license mentioned, DR.. Holland and his wife
from imbecy and old age incapable Understanding
ly executing the same and the other hand prove
that although they had many of those traits that char
acterze extreme old age, they fully competent to
transact the business in question. There was test
mony proving fraud or undue influence.
The Court charged the Jury, that to male will val
id, the person executing 1t have sosnd dsposing
mind and memory, but that the same capacity that
required for making contracts was not necessay-hat
these instruments were often executed upon beds Of
sickness and in extreme old age, when the mind was
PROSTATE with disease dmmed with years All that
required that the party should understand Of
what he was dsposng, for what purpose and whom to.
The burden of prooflie upon those who oppose WILL
and they must satisfactorily prove the incapacity aeg
ed In executing the license in question, still less
pacity required 1t only required the capacity
consent that the contract made Immediately after the
mrrriage should be carried out
The Cour, further charged that married women had a
right to dispose of their property by will with the hus-
bands license.
The verdict in favor of the will. The defend
ants take exceptions to that part Of the charge in rea
ton to the rights of married women to execute wills,
which are allowed, and the goes to the Supreme
Court
For the plaintiff, c. X. Field, r. Tyler, and D. Ke.
logg. For defendants, A. Reyes and VIM. C. Bradley
Vim PerTyus Athens. This was an action on the case
brought by the plaintiff against the town Of Athens for
an injury sustained by him on a highway in said town
in consequence, the plaintiff alleged Of an insult.
cheney in said highway,
This the third trial and great interest was mani
Tested in the result The trial commenced on Satur-
day the sd ut and the Arguments closed on Tuesday
evening following The jury nearly two days
but could not agree and were discharged As there is
TO be another trial we refrain from going into the par
ticulars. s-.,. ~.
For plaintiff, c. X. Field, J. D. Bradley and d. Ke-
lcgg. For defendant, o. L. Skater and w. c. Bradley
Daniel Ellis Darid Hoicard and Others This
action of trespass for taking yoke OF stays,
cart, wagon and other property belonging the plain
Tiff. The defence that the property belonged TO
Abel Houghton and attached by the defendants
such. ,
The jury did not so find, and gave a verdict for the
plaintiff for S82 49,
For plaintiff, E. Huntington, J. Roberts and d. Kel-
logg. For defendants j. +. Butler and w. C. Bradley.
State Us. PhilGnder II. Sumner. This was trial on
indictment under 20 of chapter % of Revis-
ed Statutes for cxtorng from Saunders note for
the of twelve dollars by maliciousy threatening
accuse him of the crime of perjury 1t appeared that
the respondent had been Deputy Sheriff; that Saun-
ders, to aid in preventing his getting deputaon,
made affidavit and sent Il to the High Sheriff. charg-
ing Sumner with taking illegal fees. Sumner at
considerable expense in exculpatng himself from this
and other charges and getting depntaton, and
called upon Saunders to indemnify him thereforcharg-
ing him with having made false statement
in his affidavit and threatening to him f he did not
and Saunders that Sumner threatened to put him
to State prison if he did not Saunders made the motto,
as he stated, under the influence of these threats.
Saunders in of his statements contradicted
by other witnesses, and suspicion was thrown up
on the character OF his testimony.
The counsel for the prisoner requested the Court
charge that false swearing an extra judicial afda.
Wit not perjury, and could be punished as such
that threatening person to accuse him OF such false
swearing was not threatening to him of a crime
and therefore not punishable under the Statute
The Court charged the jury that if the prisoner mali
ciosy threatened Saunders him of the crime
perjury, cih The intent to extort from him the note in
question--whether the legally or equitsbly
due not, they should find him guilty for had
right to the criminal jurisdiction OF the country
enforce civil remedies, and that whether the act OF
which he threatened to accuse him was technically
jury or not; still if Saunders believed that Sumner
threatened to him of crime, and Sumner did
this malicously with the intent mentioned, he was to
be found guilty
The jury were out but few minutes and brought in
verdict of not guilty.
For the prosecution, j. Kimball States Attorney
For prisoner, J. E. Butler and W. c. Bradley.
GRAHAM's MAoAzISE FOR JANUARY, l645.-We
have been favored with an early copy of this Mag
azine for the New Year In IT, Graham has truly