The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-09-24
Washington County Court.

Truman G. Kelton, Executor, " The Heir OF
lawson Hammetts Estate. This case came 10
the county court by an appeal from the de-
cision OF the probate court, admitting the will
OF Lawson Hammett to probate Mr.. Hammett
was well-known citizen of East Montpelier,
who died at the age of seventy-six in October,
1888 He left one daughter Hattie, the wife
of Frank A. Dwinell of Plain6eld, and wife,
Mrs. Laura M. Hammett. This widow was his
second wife, whom he married twenty-five
years ago when she was twenty-five and he
fifty-two, and she Is not the mother of Mrs.
Dwine1 Before making his will Mr.. Ham
NETT gave his daughter and bis wife, from
time to stime, sums which amounted to about
three thousand dollars apiece. By the terms
of.his will his property was to be divided
equally between his widow and his daughter.
His estate is appraised at about twenty .one
thousand dollars. Mr. and Mrs. Dwinel object
to the establishment of the will upon the
ground that MIR. Hammett was induced to un-
justly discriminate against his daughter by the
undue influence OF his wife exercised upon
him after his mind had become weakened by
old age and disease. The will Was executed
June g. 1879, little more than four years be-
fore his death, and was drawn by S. c. Shurt-
left, Esq, who was witness to the will, and
who testified, as did the two other Witnesses
Byron Goodwin and George d. Cutler-that
Mr.. Hammett on the day in question knew
what he was about and was OF "sound and
disposing mind 1t was conceded by the
h
after the making of the will, and that he was
insane for about two years before his death
There was good deal of testimony tending to
show that for several years before making his
will, Mr.. Hammett had repeatedly declared
that he should leave his property, half to his
daughter and half to his wife, and it WAS ar
gued, in behalf OF the proponent that this was
evidently an equitable division, such as he
should have made. The testimony on the part
of the contestant tended to show that for few
| years before the making of the will Mr. Ham
| mett's mind had been failing and that he had
| become childish and absent-minded that he
| had ceased to do business on his own respon-
| siblity for s)me time before the making OF the
Will; but had relied upon the judgments of
Mrs. Hammett and MIR. Dwinell implicitly
| There WAS also some testimony on the part OF
| the contestant pointing towards some acts of
| Mrs. Hammett, causing an estrangement
| between the old gentleman and his daughter.
| The testimony on one side conflicted greatly
| with the testimony on the other, as Is the case
| generally where family matters are evidenced.
| Inc real truth of the matter seems to be that
| Mr.. Hammett would have done better IL he had
made will leaving his daughter one-half OF
the property and the other half in trust to the
widow for life, and clause allowing her to
have not only the income, but the use of 80 much
of the principal as might be necessary to hel
comfort and support, the residue to 60 to hel
| daughter after the widows death. Mrs Ham
NETT has no children, and Mr.. and Mrs Dwi
nell believe, for good reasons, as they say
| that she wanted the property to leave to hel
sisters. This they object to. Cases Of undue
influence exercised upon q husband by a wife
are very hard to make out, and the contestant
| while raising strong presumption that he
theory of the case was correct, could not with
stand the volume OF testimony produced by thl
proponent. The jury very properly returned
a verdict establishing the will. Hon Charles
Fl. Heath and J; P. Lamson, Esq, for the pro
ponent; Hon. w. 2. Dillingham; and Georg,
w. Wing, Esq for the contestant.
Fannie +. Alexander VS.. John Hardigan-
The plaintiff is grass widow living on "th
Berlin side" The defendant is a truckman
who, on the 4.h day of June 1888, occupied
tenement in the house owned and occupied b,
the plaintiff. She had notified him to vacat
the tenement and he had not complied. o.
the day in question, the pl .intiff, accompanie,
by her ex-husband and present friend, Charlie
w. Alexander, the church-steeple painter, de
scended into the defendants kitchen and had
debate upon the question of his departure
He claimed that he could not 60 then becaus
his daughter, Nellie, WAS sick with the me isle
and his little son Frank, of thirteen, had bee
hurt in an atfray a few days before. The de
bate grew warm, and finally Alexander an
Hardigan cinched and had it shot an
heavy" The cooking stove was overthrow
and housekeeping pretty much broken up fo
the time being 1t was in the course Of tn
affray that the plaintiff received viole1
blow on the heart from the defend ant, which
she says, did direful injury to her health
I The defendant claimed that, II he had hit a
all. it was by accident, and that he didn't bt
lieve he did hit her. There was good cause fc
believing that the claim was sham, and thE
Fannie made the most she could of yer
small thing. The jury gave her verdict
S8 O6, which puts the costs upon the defendan
Hon c. II. Heath for the plaintiff; Messr
Gordon & Gary and George w. Wing, Esq, fc
, the defendant.
The trial OF the last civil case by jury is no
going on--H. H. Meader VS.. Town of Marsl
field. The probability is that the court wi
take recess on Thursday and hold an az
journed session for the trial Of the crimini
cases.