Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1879-09-24
Washington County Court.


Hon. 7. =. REpFIELp, Presiding Judge.
HoS Pn,L ,.s cd RronD Assistant Judges
MELVILLE +. SMiLnE, Clerk.
JoHN L FUTILE, Sheriff
FRANK PLuMLEy, States Attorney
HENRY OvIATr Stenogrdpher
The first case which came to trial. Tuesday
afternoon W. A. Boutele u.s. Westchestcr In
surance Company, commonly known az the
"llulless oat case" occupied the court the
entire week The opening argument for the
plaintiff was made Friday afternoon by Mr.. Will
liam =. Dillingham;. It was a careful summing
up of the evidence in his usual forcbe style. In
the morning Hon. 4. S. Taft, for defendant n
comparative strangerat our bar, made succinct
and mastery statement to the court OF the law
bearing upon the case, followed by an ex-
ceedingly well tempered and logical analysis OF
the facts to the jury. His quiet unassuming bear
ing in the case met with much favor from the bar.
lie WAS followed by Mr.. Charles IL. Heath for
defendant, who set out some OF the facts In the
case with great effect, and fercely arraigued Mr..
Boutelle for having burned his own property.
Mr. j. p. Lamson of Cabot closed the case for the
plaintiff. His argument was exhaustive, leaving
nothing in the case untouched lie hurled back
insurance companies for their greedy attempts to
secure premiums without paying losses. Owing
to the illness OF some of the jurymen, Judge
Redfeld reserved his charge until Monday
morning, this week. 1t is quite universally
thought to have been fair throughout; and it
certainly was exhaustive The jury took the
case at about eleven o'clock a. NJ and re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff Of SSS9.16
They estimated the value of the oats burned at
two dollars per bushel. and those saved at one
dollar. Deducting the interest for the past two
years, the verdict is little less than one-half the
verdict which the plaintiff obtained in 1877.
The calling of the new entry docket Saturday
afternoon revealed ninety new cases. And Of
these only five were divorce cases, ldnentdbie
falling off from old times. There are, how
ever slxty-elght new chancery cases.
The cases of c. +. Stevens Us. d. W. Dudley,
and Stephen Cochran administrator, Us. Thomas
Elliott, expected to be tried, have been continued
The next case which WAS tried was Wells & Dew
ing u.s. Pioneer Manufacturing Company; Durant
& Dewing for plaintiffs, and Ptkin for the de-
PENDANT. This was Il claim by plaintiffs for dam
age to their business in manufacturing lasts,
through the neglect OF the defendant to comply
with the contract by which 1t leased the power
and building to the plaintiffs for conducting their
business. The defence pleaded settlement. Mr..
II. G. Dewing, promising young lawyer Of this
town, made his maiden argument in this case. The
jury returned, after about an hours elaboration,
with verdict for the defendant.
The case of NJ. d Willard Us. Judge James A.
Coburn was next before the court. 1t is an action
of trespass for assault and battery. The parties
are both from East Montpelier, and well known
lst AS we 90 u press the jury return verdict
Of $40. Al for the plaintiff.
Court takes a recess till Friday, on account Of
the county fair.