Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1877-01-24
Orange County Court.

ptthoio hClO NlolhlooObb OWluS W
Redfeld's inability to stay longer, and the
prospect of II long term in June is good,
The following divorces, in addition to
those already noticed, were granted:
Della II. Tillson from Leroy G. Tillson,
for intolerable severity, and custody of her
daughter Edith given to the petitioner;
Mary j. Davis from William II. Davis,
for wilful desertion; Ruth Wallace from
F. A. Wallace, for wilful desertion and re-
Gusal TO support; custody of her son Fred
and certain personal property as alimony
given to the petitioner; Joseph Landon
from Margaret Landon, for intolerable Sc
verify and adultery.
The petition of Lyman Denison, 3D. of
Chelsea, to have his marriage with Har-
riet Gleason annuled was heard by the
conrt; but no decision has yet been given.
1t is alleged by the petitioner that ut the
time Of his marriage with Harriet she was
incapable of making nuptual contract
for the reason that her former husband
had few years before procured divorce
L" from bed and board - from her in Mass
f achusetts, and that by the terms of that
decree she was not permitted to marry
! again without leave of the court. The
petitioner makes out his case well enough,
= except that he does not very fully identify
the petitionee with the Hattie Gleason
| named in the Massachusetts divorce. He
3 was unable to procure her attendance in
/ court where witnesses could see her, and
the best he could accomplish was the i,len-
t tilicalion of certain linotype" as her
t likeness Mr.. S. B. Hebard appears for
the petitioner and Mr.. Charles II. Heath
} for the petitionce.
S William II. Arnold of Tunbridge, whose
conviction of adultery with Roxanna Whit
? ney has been mentioned before, was SEN
fenced to five years in the State Prison
Arnolds counsel have taken bis case to
the Supreme Court on exceptions but he
| prefers to 90 to State Prison now, as being
far more comfortable than the County
, Jail. If the exceptions are overruled,
then he will have served out so much of
[ his sentence, and if they are sustained he
will be no worse of.
/ Carlos M. Gilman vs.. Town of Strafford,
which was on trial at the time of the last
report Of the court in this paper, lasted
J from Monday, the Sth, till Saturday
evening, the 18th. Some one hundred
and fifty witnesses were examined. and
, about dozen dispositions were read, in
GLIDING the plaintiffs, who, it was alleged,
could not be moved from his bed. From
the evidence on the part of the plaintiff it
appeared that he was II man about thirty
years of age. witha wife and child, who
had once resided in Vershire, but who had
afterwards kept an eating-house on Essex
Street in Boston. In the spring Of 1874
he was severely injured on one of his hips
by II falling range, and afterwards had IL
fever, Which obliged him to give up his
business and come to Stanford, where he
resided principally with his father-n- law,
AMnson G.. Smith. On the evening Of
April 9TH, 1875, he was returning to his
flther's-in-law, from his brothers in YER
shire, and while going down the hill by
Elatch's saw-mll (bctween Sraford Cen
ter and the South Village), he ran against
II log which had rolled into the travelled
track from one of the piles on the road
side, and was thrown out. In II short
time total paralysis of both legs and the
right arm resulted, and now he has neither
sense of feeling or power of motion. He
cannot detect the pricking of pins or
needles in the paralyzed parts, nor move
them IL particle. He is partially deaf and
his hearing is impaired. This is Substan-
TALLY the plaintiffs claim. The defendant
denied, first, that the road was out of re-
pair; but the evidence was pretty over
wheming that the logs had been piled up
on both sides of the road without much
= regard to the legal width of the road, and
: after the frost began to come out of the
ground several Of the logs rolled into
the travelled track. The main points made
by the defence, however, were that the
plaintiff was shamming in whole or in part,
t and that even, if he was in the condition
he claimed, the real cause was the injury
: to the hip received in Boston, and not the
, accident in the highway In proof of this
the defendant put on a multitude of wit
nesses who testified 10 declarations by the
plaintiff previous to the accident, which
tended to prove that he was in miserable
health and almost despaired of recovery,
and that he was unable to move without a
cane and crutch. The plaintiff denied
, these declarations and claimed that he was
nearly well of this Boston injury ut the
time of the accident and was intending to
90 to the city to re-engage in business the
day after, Several physicians were put
upon the stand by each side who, as usual,
, swore up to the line 'and behaved like
extreme partisans instead of impartial in
vestgators after the truth. The leading
physicians for the plaintiff were DR.. A. b.
: Crosby of the Bellevue Hospital, New
, York, and DR.. S. j. Allen, of White River
, Junction, Vermont, who described Gil
mans condition substantially as stated
above, and said that his cure or improve
q. ment was very improbable. For the de-
PENDANT Professor G. p. Frost of Dart
, mouth College, DR.. L, +. Phelps, of Wind
sor, and Dr. G. N. futile, of Lilleton, n.
IL testified that Gilman was MT para
lived us he claimed, if at all, and that he
was "shamming," some, if noS wholly
The other medical witnesses followed
their leaders on The respective sides, and
sworc as near rs possible the same. What
ever the plaintiffs real condition may be,
. the almost utter worthlessness of melical
expert testimony in such cases was com
petey demonstrated. What information
can IL inry derive from the testimony of Il
, dozen doctors, six of them swearing
1 point blank" in opposition to the other
six? The case could have been decided
= Just as well and just as intellgibly ifnot a
single doctor had testified.
The case was ably argued by Mr., C w.
CLARK and Judge Poland for the plaintiff,
p and Mpssrs. Orin Gambell and John w.
q Rowell for the defendant. The evidence
for the plaintiff was skillfuly put in by
Mr. 8. b. Hebart, and for the defendant
! by Col. Roswell Farnham. The jury after
+ very short delberation returned Il ver-
dict in favor Of the plaintiff for $4,000, The
/, case will go to the Supreme Court on ex-
e ceptions, and like most town cases will
b he " fought 10 the bitter end"
Co..
l. At the recent convocation of the Visit
o ors and Governors of William and Mary
e College, Virginia, the following resolution
was unanimously adopted; THAT the
thanks Of this board be rendered 10 the
4 Hon. George f. Hoar for the generous and
e magnanimous part which he has borne to.
n ward this college, in which, with noble
o patriotism, he has subdued passion and
e prejudice to his love of justice and elevat.
a ed literary taste"
d The Maryland and Virginia boundary
u line dispute is settled in favor of the
+ former state by the commission whose
:. Judgment these states have bound them.
d selves to accept. Maryland is given SOW.
}. ereiGnty over the whole Potomac river 10