Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1869-12-24
Windsor County Court.

EDITOR BELLOWS FALLS TIMES "A
trial of much interest especially to the
people of Cavendish and vicinity, has
Just been concluded here this morning.
| refer to the celebrated Bent case, about
which there was so much falsehood and
Misrepresentation said and published in
the newspapers last summer. The con-
troversy grew out of the conflicting
claims of S. w. Bent, and his former
wife, Minerva A. Bent, (from whom he
was divorced at the February Term,
1869, of Windsor County Supreme Court
for intolerable severity to the possession
of the stone store in Duttonsville. The
legal title to the store is in Minerva A.
Bent. S. w. Bent never had any legal
title to it. Under the operation of the
statute law of this state, the moment the
divorce was granted she became entitled
to the immediate possession of the store,
and he ceased to have any legal right to
stay there one hour. He was Temporal
rily out of the store on the 4th day of
last June, and Mrs. Bent took possession.
closed the doors and shutters and forbid
him to re-enter the building. He under
took to get in by force and violence, us
ing an ak, club, cobble stonls, iron bar,
&C., and she and her children undertook
to keep him out using various means,
cobble stones, cold and hot water, &c,
and for thus defending her own proper
ty she and her two sons and her sons
wife were placed under $500 bonds for
appearance at Court, and were indicted
by the Grand Jury. The case is one
we'll known to your readers. The case
came in for trial. The States Attorney,
J. n. Edminster, ESQ.,, and Messrs. Full
lam and Paul conducted the prosecution
and Messrs. Davis, French and Dennison
the defence. The State put upon the
witness stand S. w. Bent, james Wallis
and DIR. Hazelton, and rested the case
The defence produced the bill of divorce
and the deed of the store. The cross
examination proved very damaging to
the prosecution and disclosed the line of
defence. The States Attorney thereup-
on asked for the opinion Of the Court
upon the case as it then stood. The
Court, Judge Barrett presiding, announc-
ed their view of the case to be that Mrs.
Bent had the legal title to, and right OF
possession of the stone store, the moment
, she obtained her divorce; thatwhen on the
} 4th of June she found Bent out of the
, store, she had right to take possession
5 and forbid his coming in; and when he
] and his party undertook to get in by
: force, she and her children had a right
r to use sufficient force to effectually pre-
f vent him from getting in. She had
right to repel force and violence by force
v and violence, and the extent to which
$ she and her friends might use force
o would depend wholly upon the charactel
r of the means taken to effect an entrance
$ but if she and her party used excessive
|. force, they would be responsible for tn
). excess. She had~a right to use whateve
A. force was necessary to make her defenc
A. effectual
ID No equitable title of S. w. Bent coul
lie be considered if he had any, but tn
ID case stood upon the legal rights of tn
RS parties to the skirmish. The States Al
I'd torney said he had no hopes of proyln
n an excessive assault, and under the ru
A. ings of the Court, he could not ask tn
ng Jury to convict, and asked leave to ente
les a noHe posqui. The Court granite
d, the leave asked, and discharged the re
". pondents, but censured all concerned IL
B. being engaged in brawl. This VIZ
nd completely turning the tables. The wron
nj parties had been made res pondents,
Mt, w. Bent and his confederates shou!
. have been indicted, instead of po'
woman and her noble sons who sought
- aid her in the defence of her house ar
Use. their home, and in defence of her pc
Der sonal rights. The Court held that 5. '
of Bent and party were the wrong-doel
vas and whatever Mrs. Bent and her CHI
dren were proved to have done, legal
was Unsuitable. These are certainly very
miliar legal principles. Every mai
ck- house being his castle, and every nj
i'm, understanding he may properly and
was fectually defend his castle against an
for truder. 1t is certainly strange that a
bse- one could doubt Mrs. Bent's right to
fend her house, and house to which
nh W. Bent never had title, and it is
BUR sad commentary on the administrati
of the law by justices OF the Peace,
nth know that, as in this case, parties for a
ing strictly on the defensive, should
bite required to furnish $500, bonds or
to jail. The public have been strang'
S. misled by wrong statements Of the Il