The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-07-04
Orange County Court.

William Densmore, the respondent who was
found guilty Of one assault upon one Scrhner,
was sentenced to pay q fine OF $25 and costs.
The fine was paid.
Job Slack Us. George w. Cleveland. This
was an action OF assumpsit to recover p balance
between note for S340 and one for $40. The
claim Of the plaintiff was that in the spring of
1873 he loaned 5000 to the defendant. Some
time subsequent to the loaning, defendant gave
his note for the amount There was at the
same time book account existing between the
parties who both reside at Chelsea. Slack in
tending to leave town, called upon the defend
ant and the two settled their mutual book &C.
counts-the $500 loan, with accumulated inter-
est 1t was agreed should be nut into new
note, for $780, which was to be left ut the Chel-
sea bank to be endorsed by one Hunt, brother
in-law Of defendant. Plaintiff supposed this
to have been done, but discovered when the
note was paid that it had been made for $40
instead of $40 To meet this claim defendant
testified that at the settlement referred to he
paid the plaintiff about $3.50. and that on
previous occasion he lent plaintiff $50. He
stated that $40 was the proper balance due
the plaintiff and it was put into note at the
bank by plaintiffs direction. He called the
cashier, John G.. Clark. who corroborated the
defendant and testified to his impression that
the plaintiff said the note should be for S140
Judgment for the plaintiff 1888 20 and costs
s. B. Hebard for plaintiff, G. L. Stow for
defendant
Ida NJ Roberts as Edgar F. Roberts Pet-
ton for divorce; ground alleged. intoerable
severity. The parties were married in October,
1876. the petitioner then being in her 18th year,
her husband in bis oath They lived most of
the time at st. Johnsburv since their marriage.
Continual jars marred their domestic felicity,
and 1t was apparent on the trial that they
could never live together tremendously. Bill
granted, and household furniture, with certain
exceptions, granted to Petitioner. Denisons
for petitioner; Harvey Blodgett and Phin
Chamberlin for defendant.
Edwin H. Lille as. estate of Elisha Lille ct
al. This was petition to he allowed an appeal
from decree of the probate court for the dis
trict of Randolph. Charles Z. Granger, guar
dian of the petitioner testified to his under
standing that he had done all that was
necessary to be allowed an appeal. The judge
OF probate testified that he expected petition
er's counsel to perfect the taking of the appeal,
which was not done, and the limited time hav-
ing elapsed, an appeal was Desired. Appeal
allowed upon the ground Of " mistake" Dem
ison $ for the petitioner; Colonel. F. V. Randall
for defendants
Elmira j. Stevens Us. Angelo M. Stevens.
Both parties in this case petitioned to have
their matrimonial bonds severed by the judicial
sword: she upon the ground of his intolerable
severity, and he upon the ground OF her al
legged adultery. The case proceeded as far as
putting in all the testimony on behalf of the
wife, when by arrangement, the husband with
drew from the contest ana n Dill WAS granted
TO Elmira upon the ground of intolerahle Sc
verify The parties were married in 1871 and
resided in Newbury, and later at Lunenburg.
R. M. Harvey for petitioner; Alexander Dun
nett and Phin Chamberlin for cross-petitioner.
The following cases were also heard, and bills
we're granted without opposition, as follows
George W. Carr Us Laura j. Carr, adultery
s. B. Hebard fo- petitioner. Caroline w.
Garfield Us. Moses v Garfield, bill granted upon
the ground of intolerable severity; Dickeys.
Sophia Luce as Hiram S. Luce, bill granted
upon the ground of intolerable severity; Per-
rim and McWain for petitioner. Nellie B.
Fulam rs. Henry H. Fulam. notice, marriage
and residence proved: bill granted for deser-
ton: custody of minor children given to petit
toner; F. N. Holman for petitioner.
The case of Adde Z. Grow US. AloDzo D.
Grow, in which both parties ask separation,
commenced on Friday This is a strongly con-
tested case, and although it was hoped to have
concluded it by Saturday, it was impossible
and recess was taken until Monday, when
the hearing of the case was resumed. 1t is a
cause celebre in the line OF divorce case.
In the state cases against Kelly and Donahue
charged with resisting an officer, in which the
respondents bail was called and forfeited
the motion to cut down the amount of the bal
was overruled, and the full amount is forfeited