The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-07-09
Orange County Court.

The Jury business Of the term was concluded
on Friday last and on the evening Of that day
an adjournment was had until Tuesday morn
ing. The court Is now engaged in the transac-
ton OF court business. The following state
cases we're tried last week:
State vs. Adeline NJ Mdrston This was an
Indictment against the respondent, alleging
that on the first day of July, 1881, and at divers
other days and times between that day and the
finding OF the bill of indictment, she kept at
Tunbridge house Of i'll fame. The jury found
the respondent guilty, but sentence was stayed
until the supreme court can pass upon the
questions raised on the trial.
State vs.. Larry Griffin and Hppolyte Coyen
These respondents were charged with having
stolen fifty dollars in money in bills, five new
shirts six pairs of drawers, two undershirts
and two pounds Of tobacco, the last named ar
ticles being valued at seventeen dollars, the
property OF S. F. Frary & Co. of Stafford. The
respondents were employed at the Copperas
Hill mines in Strafford and were in the habit
of trading at the store of the above-named
firm. On the evening OF the 9TH of last jan
nary they were there to make some purchases,
about eight o'clock the store being quite full
of customers, they left and returned about ten
O'Clock After having some conversation with
Mr.. Buell. (of the firm of Frary e. Coz and the
clerk of the store, and after the latter had gone
upstairs to go TO bed, the respondent Griffin
called for some oysters and pair OF mittens.
While Buell., who waited upon the respondents,
was gone to get the oysters in cellar-way in
the back part of the store, the money disap-
peared. When Buell. returned into the store
he saw the money-drawer open, which aroused
his suspicion. Before he went out for the oys-
ters he had been counting the bills in the
drawer, but left off to wait upon the respond
ents. Buell. locked the front door and told the
respondents the money was gone, and someone
in that store had it; that he knew he had not
got it. The respondents Indignantly denied
having taken the money and demanded to be
let out Thereupon, Mr.. Buell. called down the
clerk, who roomed over the store The clerk
came down, together with friend who was
visiting him. The respondents were again ac-
cused, and they asked to be searched, stripping
themselves to the skin and passing their
clothes over to Buell. and the clerk to be ex-
amined. Their clothing was searched but no
money was found. Then Mr.. Buell. sent the
friend OF the clerk to telephone to Mr.. Hazel
tine, the constable. When the latter arrived,
and after matters we're related over to him, he
instituted another search of the clothing of the
respondents. Nothing was found on them.
Then Mr.. Hazeltine searched round the store
and outside. While Buell. was getting the oys-
tiers he heard the front door open and close, and
hence 1t was suggested to make search outside.
Tnis was done and right by the store, near at
hand, were two separate bundles containing
the articles enumerated in the indictment Mr..
Buell. then went for search warrant, and the
respondents were detained in the store all
night. In the morning they were taken to the
hotel OF Mr.. Sowles and again searched, with
like result as before Upon being talked with
a about the matter, they finally consented IL
Buell. and Hazeltine would accompany them TO
their lodgings at Copperas Hill, they would pay
what money they there had. The parties all
proceeded thither, the sum of fifty dollars was
paid to Mr.. Buell., and respondents were re-
leased Subsequently they we're arrested and
lodged in jail and were there confined unit
the time Of trial. The respondents told a
straightforward story, apparently, of all tina,
occurred, but denied having taken any goods
from the store or money from the drawer
They admitted paying the fifty dollars, but
claimed it was extorted from them by threat:
of states prison If they did not settle; and
rather than be arrested and lodged in jail, they
paid the money, having been assured by sew
eral persons that it would be better for then
to do so. Their story was corroborated by
Joseph Coyen, BROTHER of Hippolyte, who was
with the respondents all the time in question
in the store but was not arrested afterwards
as the respondents were. Several witnesses
were produced by the defence who testified Il
the good character hitherto borne by the re
spondents The jury returned verdict OF no
guilty. j. K Darling and S. B. Hebard prose
cuted; D. c. Hyde and c. II. Heath defended
The young men, Griffin and Coyen, have com
menced an action to get their money back ant
recover damages for their imprisonment.
State vs.. Fdrnunl.-Thls respondent, VIII
keeps the hotel at West Fairlee, was not pres
ent when his case was called for trial. TIL
states attorney moved to call the bonds Thi
was done and they were declared forfeited.
State vs.. Elijah Magoon. of tn
liquor law. A plea of guilty of two offense
was accepted by the state. Fine, $50 AM
costs. John II. Watson for the respondent.
State vs.. Edison Mdgoon. of eigh
sheep. Respondent demurs to the information
demurrer sustained and indictment noll
pressed Another information was then filed
setting forth the same offense. Case cor
tinued.
State vs.. Fred Magoon, Alfred Magoon an
Mary Magoon.- kidnapping. In this case tn
respondents were charged on an information {
the states attorney with carrying off tn
minor daughter of Mr. and Mrs. A. c. Kenyo
of Washington. The respondents were brougl
to Chelsea, when it appeared that the girl ha
gone with the first named respondent Of hi
own free will, and contracted a runaway ma
rage with him. Upon ascertainment Of II
facts the states attorney entered a nolle pross
and the respondents were discharged.
The amount taken in fines in liquor cas'
this term will amount to about 81 800, excl
sive OF COSTS