The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1847-09-23
Court Calendar.
RENSSELAER, COUNTY COURT.
TUESDAY, Sept /.
Prcsent-IIis Honor Justice WAITS,
A MOST SINGULAR CASE.

TUESDAY, sept. l.
Prcsent-His Honor Justice WATSON.
A MOST SINGULAR CASE.
No. Z. Ca.harine Larkin VS.. Harlow New
e7l.-This case was taken up at the opening
OF the Court on Monday and was concluded
last evening. 1t is an act Of ejoctment brought
by the plaintiff as widow of her husband,
Eaos Larlin, to recover the possession or
some Is or 20 acres of land in Sandlake, ad-
measured to her by order Of the Surrogate
for her dover in a small farm row occupied
b. the defendant,
The only question in dispute was " neither
the husband of the plaintiff was dead, and
which the plaintiff must prove to entitle her
to recoyer.-The testimony upon this point
con1ictel in a most surprising manner.
To prove the death of the husband the de-
positions oftwo witnesses residing III recum-
mission in July last, were read. One Of the
knew Enos Larkin, the husband OF the plain
tia. While he lived in Pittstown, describing
his person and giving his arc, names OF his
children, Sc; that he died in Tecumseh in
the fall of1S36 that he attended him ia his
last sickness saw the body after his decease !;
attended his funeral and saw him deposi-
ted in his grave in the village burial ground.
The other witness became acquainted with
him in PittstoHa many years since; swore
positively to his death, and identified him in
the most reliable manner.
A Young woman, in person, teStif d that
she knew him VIXEN he lived in Pittstown
knew him also in Tecumsch, where she resi-
ded for a time that he died at the house OF
his son in that place, that she saw him when
sick, attended his funeral, and saw him buried.
All Of these witnesses sworc to circu}nstaI-
ces, such as the names of his children, which
were some or in number, his age, his
height, and even to the color of his eyes,
showing thar there was no mistake in the per-
son.
On the defence nine witnesses, Of re5pccta-
be standing, were called, who testified that
they saw HIN at different times in Troy and
vicinity, between the years 1897 and 1910,
ana had conversations with him A Mrs
Austin says she met him in 1887, and having
heard he was dead, was greatly surprised at
seeing him; that she told him she understood
he was dead, and that his wife was claiming
her donor, AMI that he replied that he was
alive, and good as any ten men yet. This
witness Identifies the time as being after her
husband was subpencd, in relation to donor
claim set up by the plaintiff.
MIR. Wheeler, q justice ofthe peace, and his
father, swore that they saw him in 1888 in
Troy, and conyersed with him, and that he
wished to get ride to Nassau. A woman
testified that lie resided for some weeks in
Nassau IN 1898, in the same family with her.
John Mason swora that he saw hiln in Troy,
also, in 1888. A Mr.. Amidon also saw him
in Troy Cornelius Dubois saw him in Troy
il 1889 and 1870; identified the time by
other circumstances, and related the CONVEX
sation he had with him.
A Mr.. Gregg swore that he saw him in 49,
81, in Whitehall, WAS surprised at seeing
him, and converscd with him about his re-
ported death. lie also saw him again in 49,
40, in Amsterdam, and spent some three
hours in a grocery with him talking over old
matters relative to their former acquaintance.
All these Witnesses knew him for years
previous, described his person, his different
places OF residence, his age his business, the
names Of his children, that he went away from
Ioittstown to parts unknown, i'll 1886, (his
family having broken up), and most Of them
identified the time when they saw him by
their conversations with him, and by other
circumstances which showed they could not
be mistaken. Most OF them also had previous
~ heard that he was dead.
Upon this GVicencc the jury were called
upon to decide whether Enos Larkin was
hned in Tocumseh, or was still in the land
Of the living. Surolya more perpleXing
problem was never submitted to twelve jurors
3orsoiution. All the witnesses who appeared
before them were intelligent and respectable
and none of them had been impcached. A
plausible reconciliation of this widely conAic.
ting testimony was no easy task4or the learn
ed advocates themselves who so ingeniously
summed up the cause, and it was one ofthose
cases which might be decided either way
with propricty,
The jury retired, and after an absence o.
about an hour, brought in verdict for the
defe ndant.
The cause was adroitly managed by Geo
+. Davis, Jr., J, Holmes and d. Buel for the
plaintiff, and D. l.. Seymour and j. Romeyn
for the defendant. Troy Budget
-