Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-06-09
Orange County Court.

I Hos \ "isi conn p'oNhi' assistant Judges
Tox. LYMAN G. HiScKtEy, C7erk.
SALoMoS b. HEnARp. D,puiy Clerk
SoLON X, BERRY, Sheriff.
NELSON T.. BoYDEN, States At1rncv.
Henry OvfArr, Reporter.
Yesterday afternoon the court and jury wcr
still engaged with the case Of Eliza J Whitnoj
against the Town Of Sharon, for Injuries upon th'
highway, with Indications that II would be FINISHED
to-day.
The next case for trial W. II. NJ. Howard rs. A
p Carpenter, John Bailey, jr., Chaies Leslie, and
Iiawley Gilman, for alleged false imprisonment
Plaintiff claims that In the winter 81 1873 defcn
dants unlawiully detained him IL a room Mt III,
hotel at West falrlee under the prstcxt of reading
a bill in chancery to him, In order to get hi.
daughter ont Of his control The case Is an ont
growth Of the divorce case Of Howard Is. Howard
The following Is resume Of the cases tried by
the Jury Joseph Atkinson rs. Ridhard Patterson
This 10 an action Of trespass op the freehold
charging defendant with cutting trees and timber
and peelng bark upon the westerly half Of lot
No 20, in the town Of Newbury which is wild
land, situated In the back part Of the town, some
seven miles from Newbury street The case ha,
been tried once before by Jury at the December
Term, 1871, when Judge Peck ordered a pro
lorna verdict for defendant, ard sent the evl-
dence entire TO the Supreme Cout. At that time
both parties claimed 10 have lite to and posses
sion Of the property, but on very different
grounds. Plaintiff relied upon a chain Of deeds,
beginning with the original charter Of the town
Of Newbury, granted by Governor Wentworth, Of
New Hampshire, dated 1868, 10 Jacob Bailey and
others and a second confirmatoy charter to the
same parties granted by the Governor OF New
York, March 10, i772 and thence through Jacob
Bailey, John Lowell Stephen and Henry IIiggin.
son, Jr, and Josiah Little to Anna Atkinson,
mother Of plaintiff, and her sister, MARY l.. Hale,
who upon the death Of Josiah Little, their father,
came into possession Of this western hall Of tho
lot upon partition Of his property among the
heirs Plaintiff also put In evidence a deed from
his Aunt Hale to himself Of her undivided half
OF the land in question, dated in 1851, and he
testified upon the stand that after the death Of
Jo,ilh Little his estate paid taxes on the land IN
question till the partition was made; then the
taxes were paid by his mother and father. WIN
Atkinson and aunt and after his parent decease,
by himself till the present time. Defendant
claimed title from one Thomas r. Holt, Of Connect
cut, who had deed from Frederick W. Board
man, executor Of Daniel Bomdman, dated Noyem-
Der p 1896 purporting to convey certain undi-
yidcd lands in Newbury each thirty-four acres,
and containing together some .hree hundred and
forty acres Boardman's title being what is known
a. a tax title The supreme ourt decided that
defendants claim to a title was good for nothing,
and reversed the pro forna decision This left no
ground for defendant to found the present title
upon but possession. That is, inl case Of trespass
on the freehold the plaintiff mus. prove not only
that he has title N the land in question but
also that he has not allowed defendant or any one
else to enter upon it with the intention Of set
Ting there. Ia the present case plaintiff relied
upon the same documentary evidence TO prove
title that be did in the former suit and proved the
alleged trespass by several witnesses. Defend
ant claimed that he had got possession, though
not title and II not 10 the whole lot at least to
n certain portion Of IL, which he had enclosed with
fence. Defendant conceded pretty much the same
amount Of tree cutting aud bark peeling which
plaintiff claimed Defendant also offered to prove
that the lot in question was not the lot seventy
three named in plaintiffs title deeds before 1870,
but that lot seventy-three was a lot located fur
ther south, and that therefore plaintiff had no bet
ter il as good title 10 the land in question as him
self The court admitted the offer to be good
but said the proof proposed did not make the
offer ont, and therefore oyerruled it, This ques-
ton will be the principal to go to the supreme
court The jury returned verdict Of S33 s6 for
plaintiff and also two special yerdcts, to the ef-
feet that defendant did not have possession of the
piece cleared of and surrounded by n fence, Of
which mention has been made above and that the
damages by trespass on that were 81 H. Messrs.
d. A. Rogers and j. W RoweI for Plaintiff
Messrs Grin Gambell and C. W Clarke for do
PENDANT
The number Of entries thus far, upon the new
law docket, is seventy, and upon the new chan
Gerry docket, twenty -four-an unusually small
number for the former, though many Of them are
quite interesting.
Only eight new divorce cases have been en-
tered, which, with the cross-bills Of W II. NJ. How
ard rs. Catharine A. Howard, and Catharine A.
Howard rs. W. II. NJ Howard, on the old docket.
to be tried together make nine in all-the small
est number in court since the passage OF the law
empowering the county court To grant divorces.
The new cases are as follows Laura J. Gilbert. of
Bnintree, Is. Howard T. Gilbert, late of Ran
dolph, now Of Chicago, for intolerabe severity
and desertion, and petitioner asks for almony and
the custody Of child, Albert NJ Maria +. smith.
Of Williamstown, rs Frank f. Smith, now of New
Hampshire, for intolenbe severity, refusal 10
support and desertion, Noble Smith, Of Washing
ton, from Ada A. Smith, now Of Burke. for in
tolerable severity and adultery; Ellen c. Sargent,
OF Randolph, rs. George W. Sargent, late Of
Sharon, for desertion, and custody of child. Myr-
u azkais Euufaa -
Joseph Could, now out of the state, for intolsra-
BILE severity and desertion aud petitioner asks for
alimony and permission to resume either her
widowed or maiden name; Julia A. Ballou. of
Brookfeld, rs. Hiram Ballou, now Of Palmer.
Mass, for desertion Hattie Rowell, Of Newbury.
rs. Aaron Rowel Of Berlin, for intoerable Sc
verify, refusal to support and adultery. and ne.
titioner asks leave to resume her maiden name Of
Wilson; George w Benton, Of Thetford, rs. Abbie
j. Benton, for wilful desertion
There are two petitions to annul marriages -
In one, the petitioner, David Steele of Braintree.
represents that his daughter Harriet T., without
his consent, was married 20 ar.-sn Eldred pf
n-oi-'raa At Middlcbury, February 10. 1874 nv
Rev. T. T. Hooker, when she was only four,..,,
years old; that they lived together but n sho,,
while when her husband, having abused her. de
serted her, and the petitioner now asks the court
to annul the marriage in accordance with the pro-
visions Of chapter 20, sections and T. Of the gen
eral statutes, which provide for the annulling Of
marriages, when the parties, or one OF them, had
not attained the age of legal consent at the time
Of the marriage, nor had for any time freely cohab-
tied together as husband and wife This petition
heard by the court at the last Dec term, Judge
Redfeld presiding but no decision was rendered.
The other case is very peculiar. The petitioner,
Lyman Denison, I'd, Of Washington represents
that he was married ON the oath OF August, 1870.
by the Rev +. T. Herrick, at Chelsea Vt. to a
widow named Harriet Gleason, whose maiden
name was I.yfordi that afterwards he discovered
that on the 18th OF January, 1868, at Lowell,
Mass, she had been lawfully married to Russell
Gleason, by Russell Clarke, justice OF the peace
and that in Nov, 1863, at session of the supreme
judicial court of Massachusetts,, at Cambridge,
Middesex county, upon the libel of Russell Glea-
son bill Of divorce from bed and board was de-
creed between them on the grounds Of extreme
cruelty and desertion on her part. The petition
also alleges that by the common law and by the
law OF Massachusetts, parties divorced from bed
and board cannot lawfully re-insrry, and that
Harriet was and Is therefore incapable Of CON
tracing the marriage relation with him. Through
A. Il. IL.