Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-03-17
Washington County Court.
Hon. 7. p REDFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Hon. PHiLAsDER RIroRD, ! Assistant ,J,,dges.
Hon. JAMES A. CoBuRN, n'''''"' ""'SS'

HON 5amrs a co a,gDsD Assistant Judges
MELVILLE Il. SMILE, Clerk
FRANK PLuMLEy, States Attorney.
JOHN l.. FUTILE, Sheriff
HENRY OvIATT, Stenogrdpher.
The court is now engaged in the trial Of Grim
inal causes, which bid fair to occupy Its time for
the rest Of this week State Us. Enos b. Hazen Of
Cabot, charged with burning his saw-mill, in
Cabot, on the 3ist Of August 1876, with intent to
defraud the Vermont Mutual Fire Insurance Com
pany, Is now on trial
The other criminal cases set for trial are State
u.s. Calvin Il. Stowe Of Montpelier, for larceny;
Nelson Alexander Of Berlin, for forgery Sarah
F. Burnham Of Montpelier for arson; and WIN. L
Washburn of Montpelier, for selling intoxicating
liquor
The civil and jury docket having been ex-
hausted on Thursday, the court took recess
until Monday morning, when the new docket was
called, There are eighty-six new entries upon
the law docket and forty-seven upon the chancery
docket. The new law docket is unusually small
and shows that the legal profession is suffering
from the prevailing hard times, as well as the rest
OF the community.
One good sign of the times is the diminution in
the number OF divorce cases since the passage OF
the more stringent law of 1878. After the pas
sage of the law Of 1870 the number Of divorces in
the state, and particularly in the county, became
alarmingly great. At every session Of the county
court from dozen to eighteen divorces would be
granted, and in many Of the cases the parties
would be married again in few weeks after the
bill was obtained. In one two instances parties
were divorced twice within few years. The law
OF 1878 prohibits the libellee, when a divorce has
been granted. from marrying within three years,
and contains some other praiseworthy restrictions,
which have tended to decrease the applications.
1t is to be hoped that the next legislature will
| tirely remodel the divorce law, and take away
| from Vermont the undesirable prominence she
has attained in divorce litigation. The new APP
pcations for divorce are: Arabella II. Clark Of
Middlesex Us. Leonard G Clark OF Moretown, for
desertion; Margaret McDanels Of Cabot Us. John
j. McDanels OF Lawrence, Massachusetts, for de-
sertion, ntoerable severity and refusal to sup
port Abbie f. Ssson of Mortified Us. Erastus
H. Ssson of Bridgeport, Connecticut, for desertion
Messrs. u. S. Stanton of Roxbury and B. F.
Spalding of Montpelier were admitted to the bar
yesterday. Mr.. Spadng has been a student in
the office OF Messrs Gleason & Field, and has had
considerable prominence in military circles, by
|
pany. He intends to practice In Dakota Mr..
Stanton is a young man Of high character and
unusual qualifications for the bar, and will un-
doubtedly soon obtain large practice in what
ever field he may occupy.
The following Is resume Of the cases tried
Charlotte c. Edison Us. Perley Beknap. This
case, on trial at the time last weeks paper went
to press resulted in the ordering, by the court OF
a verdict for the defendant. As stated then, the
case depended entirely upon the construction OF
the deed which the defendant had given to the
plaintiff of one undivided half of the house and
lot, which she occupied on Vine street, Mortified
This deed set out that the lot In question ex
tended three hundred and thirty-three feet north
from Vine street to certain granite post. From
the granite post to which 1t was evident the deco
referred, was only two hundred and thirty-thre'
feet from Vine street, and the court, after thu
testimony had been closed, ruled that there wal
} no question Of fact for the jury; that the deco
distinctly named the granite post as the bound
AIRY and the wording Of the deed must govern
! in suit at law. In chancery, If the plain
tiff could prove that she was to occupy three
hundred and thirty-three feet north, the dec
might be reformed and her title perfected. Tn
plaintiffs deceased husband and the defend
ant had for many years been partners in bushes
and owned the house and lot in question in com
mon. After Mr. Edson's death some wrang
ling ensued as to the settlement of his estate ant
, finally defendant agreed to buy plaintiff out 70
81, 800, and to deed her the home and lot at ST. 80
as a portion OF the 81 500 which she was to have
l Accordingly, on the LIST of January, 1873, meet
ing OF her counsel took place at Mortified, Mr.
I | har Ehan
Bass of Williamstown, Mr. Belknap and MI
: Fisk, his counsel at which contract set
, Element was drawn up and signed, and deed o
his individual half OF the house and lot was givel
: by the defendant to the plaintiff This was til
: deed in litigation now. The defendant in pursu
ance Of the contract then took out letters of ad
ministration upon Mr.. Edson's estate, and as sue
administrator, decided to her the other individua
half of the house and lot 1t is curious that /
r that deed the same mistake made that the IL
: run back three hundred and thrty-three feet a
4 in the deed in question. The widow claims to o,
$ cupy to the end of the three hundred and thirt,
: three feet, and hence the present suit The Ian
n is not at all valuable, and nothing but ugl
i ness keeps the litigation going. The case ha
d now been tried twice by the county court, ono
Q by the supreme court, and will probably playa
n the courts for some time yet Messrs Homer "
y Iieaton, Frank Plumley and Joseph A. Wing fC
e the plaintiff Messrs. George NJ Fisk and JAIME
A N. johnson for the defendant.
y L. r. George rs Perkins Richardson. In 1877
$ the defendant was one of the highway surveyor
:, OF Calais. The plaintiff was the occupant OF
little place in East Calais. and by his harness sho
8 and garden a road ran to the grist-mill. The 81
e lectmen made trade with the owner of the plac
o DR.. Asa George, to take portion OF the land
& widen the road. In all probability the plaint
r. knew Of the trade and assented to it; but he no
denies it. In accordance with this trade the d
. PENDANT went in june removed the fence tore dow
n three young apple trees and destroyed ten row
|. Of potatoes. Afterwards In September the tow
settled with DR.. George for the damages, as the
say, by paying him S25. DIR. George admits Il
!. payment; but swears that the S25 was only to pa
t the land damages and did not compensate for til
h plaintiffs peculiar injuries. The court ruled th
10 plaintiff could recover, II at ALL only for the a
3, pie trees and the potatoes. The jury returned
,r verdict for the defendant. Mr.. l.. L. Durant Il
IL Wing for the defendant
!, State rs. Melvin r. McCrillis. This case WI
c. brought under the nuisance act, the responder
'f being prosecuted by the town grand juror
lie Barre The respondents place of business,
ID the basement of Durkee's block, on Main stree
l. in the lower village of Barre, was closed the 9
re of last December, The testimony showed tn
ir McCrillis had kept small grocery, and had so
e. considerable beer there during the summer Al
O. fall but there was very little evidence tending
IN show that he had sold any within short time
IL when the complaint was made. 1t appeared tn