The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-07-15
The Case of John E. Rollins.

James f.. Curran, a special examiner
of the pension office, closed the case of
John f. Rollins of Barre and returned
the papers and testimony to the pen
sion office two weeks ago. He says this
was the most difficult case he ever had.
He has held his pension court in East
Montpelier, Barre, Orange and other
towns, and the amount of testimony he
has taken, if printed, would make a
fair-sized book. Mr.. Rollins was pen
stoned at IS month for an injury of
the knee, and was paid 81 900 arrears.
He then applied to the pension office
for higher rate of pension, when in
formation was received at the pension
office to the effect that Rollins claim was
fraudulent; that his disability was con-
tracted in 1865, after his service. There
upon the payment of the pension was
stopped and Mr.. Curran sent to investi
gate the case. Mr.. l.. l.. Worthen was
the active party in opposing Mr.. Rollins.
He testified that he saw Rollins in the fall
and winter of 1863 and 1864, after his
discharge from the service, and he was
not lame then: that he did not see the
claimant again until 1875. when Rol
Inns was very lame. and that Rollins
then told him that he injured his knee
in climbing a stone-wall in going to the
Chamberln fire in April, 1868. This
witness, on cross-eXamination by T. J.
Deavitt, admitted that he was not on
friendly terms with the claimant; that
he had not spoken to him for eight or
ten years, and would not speak to him {;
that the claimant had procured the ar
rest of the witness, few years since,
for an assault on the claimants wife
and son, and that the witness was fined
a small sum by Justice Reed of Barre
which he paid, with costs. Other wit
nesses testified that prior to 1868 Roll
Inns attended and participated in dane
ing-schools in Orange, and was not
lame then, and that he told several wit
nesses that he got his knee hurt in 1865
But there was no testimony TO show
that Rollins did in fact get his knee
injured in 1868, and he himself testified
that he did not receive the injury
at that time, and stoutly denied that
he ever told any one that he did. There
was some testimony tending to show that
Rollins hurt his knee in the army, and
witnesses testified that he was lame on
his return home, and that some of them
saw Il Du1CH On lllt kucG very SOOll
after his return from the service. A Z.
E. Bigelow, NJ. D., of Barre testified
that he treated Rollins in the fall of
1868, and again in 1864 for "A trouble
of the knee. DIR. Field of Barre also testi-
fled that he had prescribed for Rollins
few times prior to 1868, but did not
remember what his treatment was for;
but, in the summer of 1868, he remem-
bered that Rollins came to his Office
with bad knee, which was swollen
and very painful, and about a week
later he was called to Rollins house to
treat the injured knee, and he then had
run of rheumatic fever; that during
this sickness Rollins had anchylosis of
the knee joint, from which he still suf-
fers. He did not remember that any
other of the joints were injured by the
sickness. The question presented in
this case is whether Rollins present
great disability is wholly due to the in
jury he received in the army or from
the sickness he had in 1865, and
whether the sickness might not have
been caused by the injury received in
the service. The special examiner has
been thorough in his examination of
this case, with view TO having the
case decided on its merits, without
considering the wishes of Rollins
enemies or friends, and, whatever the
result may be, it ought to be accepted
as final settlement of the case.