Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1863-10-02
windhnm County Court.


No. S6.-Asahel ". Not and SARAH ".
Mott, his wife, rs. Isaiah Stodder. This
was an action for SANDER, charging Mrs,
Mott with larceny. The words charged in
the plaintiffs declaration, were,--" Mrs
Mott pretended to say that she did not steal
Wheelers wood but she no need to lie at
all about it, for saw her out taking wood
from Wheeler's wood pile, and carrying il
into her house. She is the greatest thief
that ever lived in Cambridgeport. She is
the hardest woman / ever saw" The lady
plaintiff charged that the defendant falsely
and maliciously spoke and published of and
concerning her the above slanderous words.
The defendant did not set up in his plea
the truth of the charge, but denied utter
ing the slanderous words, in the sense i'm
p1ted to him.
Several witnesses testified that they heard
defendant, on different occasions, say sub
stantially what was charged in the declara-
ton.
The defendant testified that he did not
use the word steal or I" stealing" but
that he used the words take and taking.
When asked upon cross examination, how
he understood it to be, whether taking, with
right to do so, or stealing this question:
the defendant refused TO answer. The de-
fendant introduced one witness to prove,
that on certain occasion, testified to by
plaintiffs $ witness, the defendant did not
use the word steal" or stealing. This
witness testified on cross examination, that
he understood by defendants relation of
what he alleged he saw Mrs. Mott do, that
Mrs Mott had been stealing Wheeler's wood.
The defendant put in issue for the jury to
determine. the simple question. whether he
did utter and publish the words charged, in
the sense imputed is him.
Verdict of the jury for the plaintiffs
Damages $3.50. G. B. Eddy and H. E.
Stoughton for plaintiffs. Messrs. Butler
& Wheeler and A. Stoddard for defendant
No. 91.-Mhon [. Ho,Cnrd as. Cham
der Pratt. Action of trover for 81 in mon
ely. Verdict for the plaintiff. Butler &
Wheeler and Stoushton for the plaintiff.
Stoddard and Davenport for defendant
No. l12.-Knovhon and FoskeH rs. u.
& Mass. II. Il. Co. Action on the case
against the defendants as common carriers.
Verdict for plaintiff. Butler & Wheeler
and Stoughton for plaintiffs. Charles X.
Field for defendant.
No. Ia Rsleg e. Bazdwsm as. Hollis
7acstcheH ct al. Verdict for plaintiff. E.
Z. kellogg for plaintiff Butler & Wheel
er for defendant.
No. 15S.-Dammerston as. Londonderry,
apt. This was an appeal from an order of
removal of pauper from Dummerston to
Londonderry. Londonderry relied upon
an alleged interest of the pauper 10 certain
real estate in Dummerston, and insisted, in
consequence of said interest, that the pau
per could not be legally removed from Dunn
merston. The pauper testified that his sis
ter, few years ago, purchased and took
possession of some real estate in Dunn
merston, and that in accordance with an IN
derstanding between himself, his sister and
the granter, he, the pauper, paid $50 of the
purchase money, and was to have an inter-
est in the real estate to that amount. The
deed was TO the sister alone. Verdict for
plaintiff. d. kellogg and A. Stoddard for
plaintiff. Butler & Wheeler and Slough
ton and ID. Arnold for defendant.
] State Us. Temple. This was an indict-
ment for incest, charging the defendant with
the commission of the chine with Amy
Temple, his daughter, now about IS years
of age. The jury returned a verdict of
guilty. Sentence of Court,-three years
in State prison. Hix for State. A. Sod
dard for defendant.
Mr. EDITOR AS some fears are en-