Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1866-05-04
windham County Court.

pratueporo ThGnlx, OF the proceedings
Of the Windham County Court last week:
State VS.. Leonard Observation-Disclosures
for larceny, which set forth that the res
pendent on the 9Th day of October, 1865,
feloniously did steal and take away one
horse, one wagon, two Buffalo robes and
one umbrella, the property of f. w. Mi
ner of Guilford; and also one overcoat,
one dress-coat and one vest, the property
of Chester Williams of Guilford. Upon
being arraigned for trial the respondent
plead guilty, and was remanded to jail to
await sentence.
c. B. Eddy for the prosecution; c. Z.
Arnold for the respondent.
State VS.. Ezra Shepard.-This was an
indictment for an assault and battery al
legged to have been committed at Jamaica
on the 18th day of June, 1865, upon the
person of Sybil E. Shepard, wife of the
respondent by striking and beating the
said Sybil with horsewhip. The re-
spondent neglected to appear for trial,
and his bonds were declared forfeited.
G. B. Eddy for the prosecution; Butler
& Wheeler for the respondent.
State vs.. Charles Knight.-This was an
3 indictment for an assault and battery al
legged to have been committed at Newfane
in August, 1865, upon the person of VIM.
n Doot r. .cs1 Na,,f,,,a Tho racnond-
ent plead not guilty, and was put on trial.
The evidence Of the prosecution disclosed
that respondents at the aforementioned
time was at the Hotel of Lucius Halliday,
attending dance, and that the said Root
was also about there, drinking freely, and
was somewhat intoxicated; that during
the evening some others who were in at
tendance commenced making fun of Root
and hectoring him; that Root not know
ing where or who he was striking, struck
the respondent, who was sitting near them,
blow in the face. That the respondent
asserted to Root that he was not meddling
with him, and that he ought not to have
struck him but that Root still persisted
in coming at and blaming the respondent;
that the respondent repeatedly told him
i. to keep away; that Root refused to keep
away, and the respondent struck Root a
blow with his open hand across his nose
and eye that his nose bled and his eye
was badly swollen and discolored for sew
eral DAYS. That soon after this affray
Root was taken sick with the typhoid
fever. and finally lost the use of his eye,
and ii was claimed on the part of the pros
ecution that the fever was TO some extent
attributable to this blow, and also the loss
Of the eye.
The evidence of the respondent tended
to show that typhoid fever was never
caused BY external injuries of any charae-
ter; that the eye was not properly treat
ed by the physician who attended Root
in his sickness; and further, that in cases
Of typhoid fever patients occasionally lost
the sight of one eye at least, and that too
when no external injuries have been re-
ceived; that at the time this affray oc-
Cured typhoid fever was prevalent in the
place, and had been in Roofs family for
three weeks. The respondent also intro
duced evidence to show that he was
known and regarded as peaceable and
quiet citizen, and never engaged in fights
or broils Of any kind. After this evil
dence had been given to the Court and
Jury, the respondent withdrew his plea of
anot guilty" and pleaded 4guilty." Sen
fence suspended.
C.B. Eddy and Stoddard for the pros
ecution; Davenport for tho respondent.
Joel S. Leonard VS.. Enoch Ware.-This
was an action on the case for malicious
prosecution. The evidence of the plain
tiff tended to show that in the fall Of 1860,
he purchased the farm upon which he now
resides, in Townshend. That there was
a certain apple tree upon said farm bear
ing Spitxenburg apples, standing about
six feet from the fence which separated
his farm from that OF his neighpors, "hich
farm was purchased by the defendant in
the spring of 1864. That this tree was
within the plaintiffs enclosure, and he
had always gathered the apples growing
upon said tree, and did SO gather them in
the fall of 1864. That the next day after
the apples were gathered. the said defend
ant applied to John S. Fullerton, one of
the justices of Townshend and sued out
complaint and search warrant against the
plaintiff, setting forth that he had reason
10 suspect, and did suspect, that SAID APP
pies we're taken by the plaintiff, and we're
then secreted or concealed about plain
tiff's premises. That this warrant was
placed in the hands of an officer, who on
the 18th of September, 1864, searched
the premises Of the plaintiff and found