Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-03-02
CORRESPONDENCE.
About the Barton Row.

communications IN your paper lhat GER
tain parties interested in the prosecution
Of VIM. F. Smart at Barton, were very
much chagrined at bis acquital, and
having failed to convince the jury Of his
guilt, are determined 10 convict him in
the minds Of the readers Of tie Standard.
Having no feeling on the subject ex-
cept as Mr.. Smari's counsel, and being
uninterested in the Hotel ripalyy at Bar
ton, should not have thought of troubling
you nor myself by any communications,
had not Mr.. Grout, one of the counsel
for the prosecution, iutimated in his ar
ticle that would not justify the verdict.
Mr.. Grout knew from private CONVEX
sation with me that did justify it, and
that ] considered the prosecution more
disgraceful than the row it arose from,
and ] am quite surprised at such an init
nation from him. Immediately after
the row-which like everything of the
kind that occurs at Barton, was made
famous by newspaper correspondence
the States Attorney instituted proseeu-
ton agains j. +. Little for assaulting Mr..
Smart, the only person who received any
serious injury in the afray. This case
is now pending. Afterwards and APP
parently for the purpose Of heading OFF,
this prosecution, a complaint was made
by a Town Grand Juror Of Barton against
Smart for assaulting J. F. Little, and
r. IL. Little, his father The complaint
stated the christian names Of the Littles
and Smart, and the warrant was dated
December, A. d. 1860, but the Court
would not allow the respondent to take
advantage Of any Of these errors.
In this complaint there were two other
counts for assaults alleged TO have been
made on different persons and on a diff
ferent occasion. The Court in accord
ance with the established practice, as
soon as the fact was apparent, on motion
ordered the prosecution to elect one of
the counts on which to proceed.
OF course the Little count was elected,
and on that alone a .Smart-Little trial
was had which occupied the remainder of
the week. The motion was opposed by
the counsel for the prosecution, and the
case of the State OF Virginia V. John
Brown OF Harper's Ferry, very gravely
quoted in support of their position
After the Court decided the point the
counsel claimed that the question of the
election of counts should be submitted to
the jury!
The evidence on the part of the prose-
cution was a miserable failure, and if
the evidence of the defence was true
Smart must have been innocent. 1t was
not pretended that Smart made use of
any weapons or of any profane or threat
ening language.
it appeared that the only hope of the
prosecution was to connect Smart with
and make him responsible for all the sins
of the Passumpsic Railroad, as well as
of the Passumpsic House, and its pro-
prietor, and by wholesale charges against
these Institutions" convince the jury that
Smart assaulted somebody.
The jury probably considered these
matters irrelevant TO the issue and ac-
quilted the prisoner. They would have
disgraced themselves by doing other
wise.
] might add that the statement of Mr.
Grout in reply to "One of the Six"
that the prosecution employed bu; t,0o
lawyers is simply an equivocation on a
matter of no Importance. Who employ
ed the lawyers, do not know, but more
than two certainly acted for the prose-
cution.
Regretting that so small an affair as
a justice trial for simple assault should
have occupied so many of your valua-
BILE columns,
! am yours. &c.
BENZ. H. STEELE.
Derby Line, Feb. q, 1860.