Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1883-10-05
RUTLAND.
D. NJ. Haven In court The Grand
Jury,s Indictments.


j. NJ. Haven was arraigned tefore the
Rutland county court Tuesday forenoon and
pleaded not guilty to four Of the indictments
against him for ovcrissung Rutland railroad
stock. The other two indictments for over
issuing stock he did not plead to, because
no copy of those indictments Lad been furn-
ished him and the law does not require one
to plead until twen,y-four hours after copy
of the Indictment is furnished the respondent.
lie will be defended by w. &. Dunton OF
Rutland and L. Il. Hard of Burlington. 1t
is expected an application will be made for a
continuance, though but little can be learned
flom either Haven or his counsel
Among the other indictments are the fol-
lowing. Town of Casteton, Insufficient
highway; Calvin II. Chapman, Rutland,
assault A. G. Mcintyre, Chelsea, larceny ;
Frank Thornton, Brandon, aIs1ni JOB
Phillips, Dandy, assault; Martin Farrell,
Clarendon, perjury 10 making tax inventory ;
John Lambert, Rutland, assault Z. NJ Sher,
man, Clarendon, selling liquor; Richard
Chittenden, perjury in making tax invcn-
tory; Pixley Bush, Brandon, perjury in
making tax inventory.
The October term OF the United States
circuit and district court opened before
Judge Wheeler Tuesday afternoon. AT the
United States court rooms there being no
jury cases, the jury were Immediately DIS
charged. A number of motions and orders
in chancery cases were made. The old
chancery case of the Rensselaer, and Sarato-
ga railroad, VS.. the Bennington and Rutland
railroad was set for hearing this morning.
A Failure of Justice in Rutland.
From the Butland HERALD
The grand jury adjourned without making
any presentment in the matter OF the alleged
cmbezzlemcut of the cash OF the Rutland
railroad company. The attention of the
grand Jury was specially called to this mat
ter by Judge Ncazey in his charge, and
it is matter of public astonishment that the
grand jury did not succeed in fndlng out
facts that would warrant indictment OF some
party or parties presumably guilty of this
alleged ENLIGHTENMENT. Forty thousand dol
lars has been stolen by somebody, and yet
the grand jury makes no presentment, We
do not learn that the present directors, whose
expert has been searching carefully through
the deep tangled wildwood Of the accounts
of the recent management, were summoned
before the Jury to testify we do not learn
that there was any exhaustive effort made to
explore the mystery OF this alleged cmDezzle-
ment, and secure the indictment of the
presumably guilty party or parties. 1t Is a
curious result, not likely TO Increase public
confidence in the capacity of our present
judicial machinery to silt out the truth from
the mass of mystery and contradiction with
which this alleged ENLIGHTENMENT has been
wrapped, like fog, for the last five months.
The failure of the grand jury TO indict
anybody leaves the people IN the fog more
than ever, and VIC are driven to one of two
conclusions. The grand jury and the
prosecuting officer did their whole duty or
they did not if they did their whole duty
without finding facts to warrant an indct-
ment, why, then the judicial machinery
they represent is so radically lame us TO war
rant compassion If not contempt.