Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-11-17
Washington County Court.


vert 10 the loose ideas Of the marriage relation
which seem prevalent among certain classes Of
the community, and which are eremplifcd by the
applications for divorce which come before the
court lie remarked that under the present
statute, the court could often do nothing else
than grant divorce when a certain showing
Is made, but he could not help lamenting that 80
sacred relation As marriage was commonly ro-
garded as little else than bargain between the
parties, To be broken whenever convenience might
dictate. lie regarded the prime cause as being
the thoughtlessness with which marriages were
entered into between persons unsultod 10 each
other by age or temperament, and too often
parents and guardians we're more to blame than
any one else
The following divorces were granted Betsey T.
Powers from Chester Powers, for intolerableseyer-
lily and refusal to support; petitioner allowed to
resume her maiden name Of Morse, and the Gus
tody other daughter, Wilma Carnetta, given toher
Ida r. Stevens, OF Elmoro, from Royal j. Stevens,
Of Barre for intoernble severity aud refusal to
support; petitioner allowed 10 resume her maiden
name Of Barnes. Aaron Rowell. Of Berlin. from
Hattie RoNell, for wiltul desortion. Ruth A. Nell
sou from freeland X Nelson for wilful desertion
and refusal to support, petitioner allowed 10 re-
sumo her maiden name and 10 have alimony
Mary T. Ketchum from George W. ketchum, Of
Cabot, for adultery petitioner allowed 10 resume
her maiden name
The following witness cases have been tried
Daniel Belknap "a. Perley Belknap, David W
Folsom ~. David c. CONNER. Executor; Thomas
Utton No. C. C. Putnam; Lemra Macon u.s. Town
Of Berlin J. D. Clogston rs Randall & Dumnt
0rison Foster rs T. NJ. Collins Redfeld & Crooks
a. State Of Vermont, David Bacon u.s. Lewis W.
Avery, aud Martin Andrews Is. John Wheaton.
The following Is an abstract Of the cases In
which the decision OF the court has been rendered
Daniel Belknap rs. Perley Beknap. The par
ties are brothers and live in Mortified The CON
troversy was in regard to certain items Of ac-
count between them, the principal one being $500,
arising from the profits Of a farm they both owned
in Randolph II was claimed ON the part Of the
defendant, that this item, with others, had been
passed upon alta arbitration in April, 1877 Judg-
ment for plaintiff. Mr. Frank Plumley for plain
tit MIR George NJ. Fisk Tor defendant
Thomas Utton rs C. G. Putnam The plaintiff
claimed to recover 1925 from defendant for ser
vices rendered. 1t appeared that in June 1872, he
went to work for bis brother Robert, who resides
In Worcester, upon q 10. OF lumber land bought Of
defendant, drawing lumber and peeling bark. lie
claimed that defendant engaged to see him paid
Defendant admitted the undertaking as to the
next six months after June 1872 but said that his
responsibility continued no longer, and that plain
tit must look to Robert Utton for the si25 The
evidence showed that money had frequently been
paid by Putnam to Thomas Utton, upon orders
purporting to be signed by Robert, but that when
he presented the last order Of SIPS at the time he
quilted work for Robert, payment was refused
The court found that PutnSm's responsibility af-
ter the first six months not proved, and there
fore found for the defendant Messrs Gleason &
Field for plaintiff Messrs c. H. Heath aud IIo-
mer W. lIeaton for defendant
Lemira Macon u.s. Town Of Berlin The plain
tiff, who resides in Berlin, sued to Tor the
support Of an aged pauper named Hannah Parker,
from March 24th, 1879 till May, 1874, the date Of
the writ, at three dollars week 1t appeared
that the paupers residence is in Montpelier, but
that previous to the spring OF 1873 she had been
boarding with the plaintiff her board part Of the
time being paid by her son in Chicago In the
spring OF 1879, plaintiff claimed that Samuel
Chandler, the oyerseer Of the poor Of Berlin made
contract with her to board her till he could as
certain where the pauper's residence was This
WIS denied by Chandler. 1t appeared that the
contract was very vague, II any was made, and
the court intmated that under the pauper law Of
this state, no recovery could be had Col Ran
dali, plaintiff counsel contended that some Of the
cases in the reports decided differently and wished
to take the matter to the Supreme Court, mas
much IS his client was an old lady who had taken
pity on the pauper and supported her at her own
expense for some time, before calling upon the
town The County Court therefore ruled pro formd
for the plaintiff and found for her to recover Mt
the rate Of two dollars per week, Mr.. 7. V. Ran
dali for plaintiff; Mossrs. Frank Pumley and j.
T. Iamson for defendant.
Orison Foster rs T.. NJ. Collins.-Thc plaintiff is
a resident of Barre, and the defendant belongs in
West Topsham. December oath, 1872, the parties
signed note Of 1925 as sureties for O. f. Wat
son, OF West Topsham, who subsequently de-
ceased n bankrupt. October 9th, 1873 while In
Mr. f. T. French's law-otIice, at Barre, the plain
tiff told defendant that he would see him harm
less in the note, and would attach property of
Watson's aud secure the note. The note was
payable at the Barre National bank and he prom
ised Dr. Braley, the president that he would pay
it Subsequently he sued the note, with others,
but the Court held that he could not recover, in
asmuch as he had not in fact, paid the bank but
merely promised lie then brought the present
suit against Collins to force him to pay half The
defendant claimed, first, that, relying upon fos-
ter's assurance that he would see him harmless,
he had made no attempt to secure himself upon
watson's property, and second, that Foster now
cient to pay the note The Court found for tho
defendant upon the first claim. Mr F. " Ran
dali for plaintiff; Messrs, r. NJ. Harvey, OF West
Topsham and j. A. Wing for defendant
Judge Royce came from st. Adams on Friday,
and heard the case Of the Town of Montpelier rs.
Montpelier 4 Wells River Railroad Company,
aud OF Redfeld Crooks rs. State of Vermont a
writ Of dudifd quereid Mr. Sydney Z. Rsdheld
the senior partner OF the firm, WIS convicted two
years ago in the County Court, of third
offense" under the liquor law. He now eomet
into court and prays that the Judgment be stricken
of the record, because one of the conviction,
against him, which went TO make up one of tn,
offences was not legally obtained before the jus
tce II appeared that in July, 1871, a certain
man, being arrested drunk disclosed that he had
obtained his liquor at Redheld 4 Crooks store
Crooks was served with warrant, appeared be
fore the court, pleaded guilty to one frs
offense," and was fined ten dollars aud costs Mr.
Redfeld says that no papers were ever seryoC
upon him, that he was sick at home Of the rheu
matisrn aud that the sale, II made, was agains
his orders The Government put in no evidence
Judge Royce took both cases with him to ST. Al
bans, and has not rs yet rendered decision
WEST ToPsHAM - After an absence Of few