Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-09-29


The defendant claims that what purports to be his
signature on the note /. "a forgery +. o. Leon
ard, for whose benefit the note was given, and
who received the money from the plaintiff, WAS
formerly a well known man in Barre, pursuing
the occupation Of team 4ter. c. c. Leonard il the
father, and II. C. Leonard the brother, OF this E
o. Leonard, who on the morning Of March meet
ing, 1878 was TO take the train at Mont
pelier for the west, where his plaza OF conceal
ment Is now known TO very few. After his sud
den departure, rumors were rife that he had left
a forged paper behind him, and the plaintiff,
hearing these rumors while In the village on the
day of his disappearance, went to the defendant,
and asked him about the note upon which was
defendants signature. Defendant informed him
that the signature was a forgery. From this
came the present suit. The other men whose
names appear upon the paper also claim that their
names were forged, but they were not allowed to
testify in this case, since the question 10 point
was not that of proving T. o. Leonard to be
forger. The signature 10 question resembles MIR,
Averilfs handwriting so closely that such men rs
I French, Carlos Carpenter, George W. Til
ton, l.. ID. Blackwell, the cashier Of the Barre
National Bank, and Horace Fideld, testified that
the signature was, In their opinion, in Mr.. Aver
iIs handwriting and was genuine. But In face
II all this testimony, the defendant, nan OF
unquestioned respectable y, aud man VIII, has
held by the vote Of his fellow-citxens positions
Of responsibility and honor, testified point blank
that he never signed the paper In question nor
had he ever seen 1t until Its presentation by the
plaintiff after T.. o. Leonard's disappearance
The case was skilliully conducted on the plain
tits side by the Hon. John W. Rowell and
Messrs. Heath and Carleton, and the defendant
had the Messrs. Boyce ~ manage his side. Az
ter a thorough examination OF witnesses both pro
and con- in which Mr.. U. Is. Boyce showed how
little dependence can be placed upon so-caled
expert" testimony, the case was given to the
jury by Judge Redheld on Friday afternoon.
After staying out all night they brought 10 ON
Saturday morning verdict for the plain
till for SAYS 81 The verdict, although probably
just, Is a hard one for MIR. Averill, as II Is
said to take his all TO pay the required am iunt
lie has already assumed the payment OF two
notes for i. O. Leonard upon which his name APP
pears. The amount OF false swearing In this suit
must have exceeded that In the first case, for
where a witness testhes to one thing and another
comes up and swears point blank that 1t was not
tent.
T. W. Miller u.s. Amos Plastrdge and Il W.
Howe. This case Is still on trial. II was begun
last Friday afternoon. 1t involves about $40,
and will have occupied the time OF the court iour
working days. The arguments are now going on,
and the case will be finished this afternoon. The
plaintiff Ia n young Methodist minister, now sta
toned at Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, who Is
the son Of Russell w, Miller OF Northheld. The
defendant Plastridge attached and sold some cat
tie and other personal property kept on the farm
In Mortified which Russell Miller carried on.
The plaintiff sues to recover, upon the ground
that the property was his and not subject to at
tachment upon hi. fathers debts. The testimony
is yoluminous. The defendant claims that the
plaintiffs claim Of ownership is simply subtsr-
luge TO cover up the properly and deiraud his
fathers creditors. The plaintiff claims that his
father became poor, and thai he advanced money,
bought the property and made his father his
agent 10 manage the property. Messs, Pumley
aud Bates and William =. Dillingham;, for plain
tiff Messrs. James N. johnson and Charles ii.
Heath for the defendant