Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1877-12-19
LAmOiIle County Court.
Hos. II HrNRy Powers, Prcsiding Judge.
Hon. J. w. STILES, ,.., .I,Jo,.
Hon. J. II. PAGE, ass '""''"'
W. H. II. KENFIELD, Clerk.
l.. y SHERwrN, Sheriff.
f. W. THoRPE, Suites Attorney

n'clock A. NJ. Prayer was offered by Rev. O. S.
Basford. On the call Of the grand jury. the fol-
lowing named gentlemen answered to their names
viz Norman Cheney, Belvidere b. f. WILEY
and Harlow Wires, Cambridge William Scott
Eden A. NJ. Kelley, Elmore; X S, Page and G
NJ. sherwin, Hydepark; Ahra Leach and Thomas
Wilson, Johnson George W Gates, l. N Le-
baron and George Story, Morristown Joshua
Luce and b. o. Shaw, Stowe; David II. Watkins,
Waterville; Alger Jones, Wocott; j. G. French
Of Cambridge, aud William Morrill, Of Stowe, not
answering to the call, they were excused and their
places filled by Hon A. b. Smith and Almon
Boardman, Esq, of Moretown, t,lsman.
The petit jurors answering to their names we're
the following: viz. Oliver H. Potter Belvidere.
Henry f. fulngton NJ. ]. Morgan, II. w. Ray
more, J. NJ. Stafford and O. C. Westman, Cam
BRIDGE + NJ, Sanborn, Eden; N. r. Church.
i'll and Francis Merritt, Elmore; l.. S. Griswold
W. S. Page, f. A. Smaley and c. u Wilcox,
Ilydepark, x. c. Cristy, James Holmes, Fletcher
Jones and H. W. Newton, johnson; C. T. Bing-
ham, f. NJ. Edwards, Charles A. Rich, A. j. Sher-
wood and A. D Thomas, Morristown; Reuben
Alger, Asa Raymond, John Robinson and Abel
p Smith, Stowe c. T.. Bragg and S. r. Man
chester. Waterville George C. Davis, NJ d. Scott
and Newell Whitney, Wolcott
The charge to the grand Jury was in Judge
Powers usual clear and comprehensive style,
after which the court appointed r. s. Page, Esq,
foreman.
Upon the call Of the docket, twenty-one civil (?)
causes and thirteen state causes were set" for
trial by jury, and about "a many more were SET
to the court " Fourteen state cases Of peculiar
and uniform character having their locus in quo
in the town Of Stowe, were upon the statement
to the court by the states attorney that the state
did not have any evidence upon which the state
would be warranted to proceed to trial, ordered
" not to be brought forward" and thus endeth
that chapter of crime"
The first jury trial was in the case OF Joseph
Hutchinson, administrator of Rhoda Remngtons
estate, rs. W IL " Bingham. This was an ac-
tion Of general assumpst 1t was instituted by
the plaintiff in his capacity administrator OF the
estate Of Rhoda Remington, to recover the sum
Of about four hundred dollars claimed to he due
from defendant to said estate for money loaned
by said intestate to the defendant, for which the
defendant had given his promissory note 1t APP
peared that for about one and one-half year prior
to November iith, 1872, the intestate had been
living with one William NJ Small in Morristown.
At that time, by her request said Small carried
her to the residence Of one J. ]. Mix in Hunting
ton where she was taken sick and died on the
9Th day of December. 1872; that on her way to
Huntington, she called on the defendant who
then paid her fifty dollars, which was endorsed
on said note: that day or two after her decease,
said Small. who was one of the largest creditors
of the estate, called the defendant at his resi-
dence in Stowe, appraised him Of the death of the
ntestate, and ut the same time notified him that
he, Small, was n creditor and that the defendant
must not pay to anv one the amount due on his
note to the ntestate, until an administrator had
been appointed that in January, 1873 said Mix,
and one Campbell Remington. a son Of the intes-
tate came to see the defendant Mt Stowe; that
said Mix presented him the note and said the in
testite had given it to him and that he was to
settle all her debts and demanded payment ofthe
mite; and that therenpon the defendant paid him
the amount of the note, and took II up The
plaintiff claimed that rs it appeared the note once
belonged tn the intestate and that there was no
proper evidence that she had ever lawfully dis
posed Of it, and that the defendant had been
seasonably notified not to pay the note to any one
except the administrator of the estate, the plain
note II appeared that the note was a negotia-
BILE promissory note payable IN bearer. and that
the defendant acted in good faith in its payment
Verdict for defendant to recover his costs This
case was tried by court at the December term
1870 when judgment was rendered for the de-
PENDANT and the case carried to the Supreme
Court upon exceptions by the plaintiff and at the
August term, 1876 of the Supreme Court, the
judgment of the county court was reversed for
error in admitting the testimony of the defendant
and cause remaDded for new trial and has
again resulted in Judgment for the defendant
T. i. Parker Bingham 4 Waterman for the plain
tiff; 7. X. Gleed for the defendant
Joseph Hinckley rs n. c. Raymore, appellant
This was an action Of trespass for the taking of u
horse 1t appeared in evidence that the defend
ant was first constable Of the town Of Cambridge
in 1876, and in that capaciy received an exect-
ton issued by justice Of the peace in said town
of Cambridge, to satisfy which he levied upon
the horse in question, which was duly advertised,
and on the 9th day of May 1876, was sold at pub
lie auction to satisfy said execution; that before
and Mt the time Of the sale the plaintiff notified
the defendant that said horse belonged to his
wife, and showed the defendant written docu-
intHt 10 his ana 1llftner,
that said horse was kept for family use, and in
any event was exempt from attachment 1t APP
peared further, that in the suit against said
Hinckley, in which execution was issued, the
plaintiff in said suit had obtained u Judgment
against said Hinckley, but that said suit had
been continued several times AZ to trustees in
said suit, and that at the time of the issue of said
execution, the trustee matter had not been deter
mined, but was then pending. The plaintiff
claimed that under the facts as above set forth.
said execution was prematurely issued, and be-
fore any judgment had been perfected, and hence
that the plaintiff was entitled to verdict in this
case, and asked the court to rule The court
in view Of the facts AZ proved, directed the Jury
to return verdict for the plaintiff for such sum
as they found the value of the horse to be- Evil
dence was ffered on both sides to show the value
If said horse and the jury, after mature deliber-
alton, returned verdict for the plaintiff for
one hundred and twenty-three dollars damages
Brigham & Waterman for the plaintiff j. J. Mon
ahan and O Heath for the defendant
Simeon Hunt rs Samuel G Stanton This was
an action of trespass with count in trespas.
on the case, to recover three thousand dollars
damages, for an alleged criminal intimacy between
the defendant and the plaintiffs wife. 1t ap-
peared in evidence that the defendant was n resi-
dent Of Roxbury, IN this state, and in 1875 wa.
roadmaster for the Portland & Ogdenshurg rail.
road and in the fall of that year went To board
with the plaintiff, who resides in johnson; that
he continued to board with the plaintiff in hi,
family, until the fall of 1876, when the plaintiff
discovered a criminal intimacy between the de-
PENDANT and his wife; that when the plaintiff dis
covered such intimacy, instead of making his dis
covery public he engaged certain discreet p and
4agacious friends to watch, and procure the neces
sary evidence to support the charge and that sucl
| friends did witness undue familiarities between
the parties, although not positive criminal init
macy; that, in consequence Of such discovery, tn,
plaintiff, at the December term, 1876, Of the
Iamoile county court brought his petition fol
divorce, ON the charge of adultery, and at the
same term the plaintiff wife entered her petition
for divorce on the charge of intolerible severity
that both of said petitions were heard at said De
cember term, and, after full investigation of tn,
petition rs originally brought, but upon a sug
gestion Of the court the said Simeon Hunt amended
his petition by adding a charge of iptolerabl,
severity, upon which the court granted him bill
of divorce. number of witnesses were put upon
the stand who testified TO having seen improper
| familiarites between the defendant and Mrs
| Hunt Considerable testimony was offered b,
the defendant to show the unhappy relations thai
| existed between Hunt and his wife during thei