The Middlebury register and Addison County journal. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1883-1885, 1885-05-22

No case recently tried in Vermont has
awakened greater popular interest than
that of the Rutland Railroad company
against eX-Gov. John b. Page. the YER
dict in which was announced last Thurs
day. The prominence of the parties to
the controversy and the amount of money
involved combined to render it important.
The verdict was for the defendant Page.
that he recover 81. Under this verdict
the plaintiff must pay the taxable costs.
On the evening following the rendering
of the verdict there vas Il torchlight pro-
cession composed of MIR. Pages friends
and the men and boys who work in the
shops of the Howe Scale company. MI.
Page was congratulated upon his vic
tory" and made a speech in reply. With
the motives of those who took part in
the procession or with the remarks of
Mr. Page we have nothing to do but we
are unable TO see cause for rejoicing. The
,suit was brought by the railroad COM
pany to recover some thousands of dol
lars which they alleged Mr.. Page owed
them; Mr.. Page claimed, on the contra
ry that the company was indebted to
him in a considerable sum. A picked, o"
"struck' Jury, heard the evidence; many
witnesses, including severel expert ac-
countants. testified; able counsel argued
the case; an upright and clear-headed
iudUa trpsi1 nd pvar tI,n doll haratinuC and
in his charge carefully reviewed and
sifted the testimony and stated the law
bearing upon the matters in dispute, and
the jury took two days and three nights
to consider their verdict. They said,
finally, that the company must pay Mr..
Page 81. In whatever light viewed, this
must be regarded as Lame and impo-
tent conclusion if there ever was one,
The simplest and probably the truest eX,
PLANTATION of the verdict is that the jury
were not able to discern the essential
from the non-essential parts of the evil
dence; that so far as they could see the
thing was about even, but that, inasmucl
as the railroad brought the suit, they
would give nominal damages to the de
PENDANT Page. We say this is the sim
plest explanation. The only other is tha
the books of the corporation which
were the main source of facts in evidenc,
are in such condition that neither party
can establish its claims by them. Blu
this fact is not one over which Mr.. Page
friends ought to eXult. He, as presiden
of the railroad, is fairly chargeable will
some degree of responsibility for tn
state of the books. 1t strikes US that tn
result of the trial is, practically, nothing
Much money has been paid to judges
lawyers, iurymen, witnesses and cour
officers, and the case is to all intents an,
purposes just where it was at the outset
Neither party has gained anything at all
for neither established its claim. So. W
repeat, there is no good reason for exulta
ton. And there is another novel featur
that demands serious attention; and tina
is the persecution theory set forth b,
the newspaper champions of Mr.. Page
that he has been horribly abused, that
is an outrage to bring such a suit agains
one who has been governor and treasure
of the State, that personal ill-will on tn
part OF the president of the corporato
was the motive for bringing the suit, an
so forth. There is very little sense i
such stuff. Take a parallel case. SUI
pose that John Doe and Richard Roe LA
done a credit business with one anothC
from 1867 to 1888; that during the perio
of l6 years they had never made settl,
ment; that each then thought the otht
owed him, and that Doe brought su
against Roe. Now ought the bringin
OF the suit by Doe to be called.an outrag
or persecution, even if Doe cordial
hated Roe! Certainly not. The sent