Litchfield enquirer., 1877-06-07
LlsIgar.on In Nav Prestoni

course of affairs there is briefly as follows:
 Not long since, Mir. Frank Newton, holding certain notes against Mir. Geo. c. Hitchcock, sold them Co MT. George Wells who secured them by attachment. Hitchcock then brought,a suit against Mir. Ezekiel Newton. half brother of his wife, and Frank Newton's father; and had the son arrested for an alleged theft in Kent. In the suit against the father, Hitchcock recovered judgment and the defendant appealed. The criminal prose- cution against the younger Newton was set down for trial, but, on examination by the prosecuting authorities of Kent, was nolled.. Hitchcock then procured a com plant against Frank Newton on charge of perjury at the trial of Hitchcock vs. B. Newto,e, and also had Mr. Ezekiel Newton summoned before the selectmen of Wash ington to answer petition for the ap- pointment of an overseer. On trial of the latter case more than fifty witnesses were offered by Mir. Newtch to prove that he was not only competent to manage his own affairs, but man of large and unim- paired property, and we are told, that the evidence of ineompetency chiefly relied upon by Hitchcock, who conducted the case on behalf of the petitioners, was that he was likely to spend considerable mon ey in defence of the suits and prosecu- tions Hitchcock has brought, or procured i to be brought, against Newton and his son. The perjury case was finished. on Saturday, Hitchcock managing the prose cution. and Newton was bound over.
 This litigation would perhaps call for no fuller comment than any other family quarrel but for one important feature: the employment by MT. Hitchcock of the 1 prosecuting machinery of the State to further his private quarrels. This is a grievance of old standing, and sore one with the people of New Preston. They have seen frequent prosecutions for trivi- al or doubtful offences on one side; while | on the other, the grossest personal abuse, and even severe assaults, have gone un- l EAST CORNWALL, June 4th, 1877.
 MR. ED1ToR.-In your last issue, your correspondent H., from West Cornwall, has made some incorrect statements which do great injustice to the petition CTS for the new road in question, besides being incorrect as to the time of holding meeting, name of the road, &c.
 l It is stated by your correspondent that ''the new road would riecessitate an ex- pense of about 5000. The petitioners had respectively agreed to open this pro: prosed route without any expense to the town, but when asked to obligate them selves in writing, refused to do so." How such a statement can be made in the face of the facts of the case, is more than can comprehend. At our last town meeting in relation to the new road, which was held on Saturday, the nineteenth of last May, l the petitioners agreed to make the cross road connecting the two roads i'll ques- tion, free of expense to the town; they had the funds subscribed, and were will l ing to ''obligate" themselves in writing to that effect. The expense of making the cross road (which is 194 rods long) on the line of the former road (now discon 1 tinued) is not very heavy. That road was discontinued some 15 or IS years ago, against the wishes of those most interest ed. This discontinuance occasioned great inconvenience, and several attempts have been made to open it again. Since the cross road has been closed, large share of the travel which formerly took the old Washington turnpike, or ''S s" road, has been turned over the "Great Hill'' road. I Consequently the SS road has been allow ed to run down and IS now in so rough a condition that our select men consider it unsafe; the expense of repairing the SS road IS the argument for not opening the old cross road. They claimed that it would cost the town nearly 5000 to re- pair the SS'road, but good judge, look cd the road over last fall, offered to put it in repair and keep it so for three years ' lOE R4OO, WAlCu H WC4A OAPOA0UNA
 on the road would satisfy the petitioners,
 and think the public generally. The
 road is rough and we have not asked
 and do not expect great outlay upon it
 in the beginning; and any argument
 about tile expense of repairing road the
 town is already obliged to maintain does not strike us as having much weight.
 With. the proposed improvements the
 stage driver could run either. way, as his
 business oallvd hin1. Everyone that ls
 acquainted with the "Great Hill" route
 knows that the ''Hill'' is very steep and long, being very badly drifted and icy in
 winter. The other route is little longer tend has some sharp but short pitches Il runs through the valley from Cornwall,
 south, making warm road in winter, and drifts but little.
 The petitioners have never agreed tc re- ] pair the 5 s road which the opposition claim would cost 5000 It certainly would be very shortsighted and foolish view o the matter to suppose that few mer
 would be at that expense to repair road already belonging to the town. The towr
 has had good chance for knowing the
 condition of the road, and the public con,
 venience, safety, and. the policy of making
 a better one.
 . A PETITIONER.
 aA Tho maston.