The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-04-02

was a very exeitable Frenchman any how. In
short, the defence was sort OF emotional in
sanity plea, such as are common In murder
trials OF late years. The jury were out about
two hours when, much TO the surprise Of every
body IL returned a verdict OF not guilty and
Louis with great Goodndture told the Jury he
felt Just like hooray and went his way reioic-
ing In the fact, and that for one day in his life
he had record of sobriety, judicidliy II not
iudiciouslv established. II. A. Huse and H.
w. Kemp for the state; G. II. Heath for the
respondent The states attorney concluding
that such verdict was glory enough for one
panel OF jury continued the remaining state
cases, which had not already been continued
In the two cases against Thomas Cory for
malicious mischief, the respondent filed two
affldavits Of his physicians that he was sick
and unable to attend court, he evidently hay
ing been taken very suddenly Ill. The first
case was continued and the second one left
with the court on a motion Of the states attor-
ney for bench warrant. 1t was noticed that
as soon as the jury was discharged Cory grew
better as rapidly as he had grown SICK and was
on the street. His attack, seemingly, was
transtory and undoubtedly intensified by the
nervousness arising from over-eyertion in pre-
pairing his defense.
State vs.. Whitcon,b (liquor) This was con-
tinued on physicians affidavits that the re-
spondent was unable to attend court
The jury was dismissed Wednesday night
and the trial of court cases began Thursday
morning, The first case for trial was
j. w. Brock vs.. d. TdrbeN.-This was an
action to recover on two promissory notes.
The defendant pleaded payment, set-off, and
the statute OF limitations. 1t appeared that
| one OF the notes in suit was the note of Luke
| Tarbell with the defendant as co-signor, the
| other OF the two notes was the note of the de-
| fendant with Luke Tarbell as co-signor The
| date OF the notes was more than six years be-
| fore the commencement of this action, but
| there we're endorsements within six years ON
each of said notes. No question was made by
the defendant as to his liability on his own
note for the balance due, but he claimed a
payment of S75 made by him on the Goth OF
| June, 1882, should be applied on that note, and
that as he had never made any payment on the
other note any payment by Luke Tarbell
would not remove the statute bar as to him.
| There was not much discrepancy in the par
ties testimony as to the facts and question
was mostly question Of law rs to the applica-
tion of the payment pleaded which was not
endorsed, but the amount admitted. With the
court L. L. Durant and G W. Wing for
plaintiff; John II. Senter and Z. s. Stanton for
| defendant
The divorce case of Ida Merriam Vs. Horace
Merriam was finished and divorce granted for
intolerable severity. II. W. Kemp for libel
liant: no appearance for libelee.
The divorce case Of Miner L. Smith vs.. Mary
Il. Smith was partially heard, as was the case
| of l.. T. Kinney vs. N. s. Goodtoin (assumpst),
when the court at half-past two in the after
noon Thursday, took a recess until Tuesday at
nine o clock in the forenoon.
The case of Kinney Us. Goodwin was con.
cluded yesterday and is now with the court
The divorce suit Of Lyman Us Lyman, Water
bury parties, was then taken up and is now on
| trial