The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-09-22
Washington County Court.

The first case for trial was that of Andrew
E, Denny, executor u.s. Heirs of Harriet
Pinney, appellants. This was an appeal
from the probate court on the allowance of
Harriet Pinney's will The testatrx was
an old lady living with one of her daughters
| in Northhed (Mrs. Alvord), the principal
legatee under the will. Her other daughter,
and the only other heir, was Mrs. Huntley
OF Northheld, who contests this will. The
will gave Mrs. Huntley $500 and made Mrs.
Alvord the residuary legatee, her share
amounting, as the evidence tended to show,
to about $1,000 As Mrs. Pnney had always
been on the most friendly relations with
! both of her daughters, and as Mrs Huntley
was in no better, if as good circumstances
! financially as Mrs. Alvord, she could see no
| reason for the difference in ducats that were
thus parceled out to the sisters, and there
! fore contested the will upon the ground of in
! capacity in the testatriX at the time the will
was made and upon the ground of undue
influence by Mrs Alvord. The evidence of
| the want of a testamentary capacity in Mrs.
Pinney was rather weak, as she was shown
! to be II woman of full the average capacity,
! but there was considerable evidence tending
to show that Mrs. Alvord had control of her
mother in the matter of everyday occur
rences and this, together with the seeming
unfairness of the will (no cause being shown
| for such unfairness), was all the contestant
had to rely upon to make the jury believe
that 1t was not the will of her mother The
case occupied the court all of last week and
| the jury, after short consultation, returned
a verdict sustaining the will. AS the pro-
ponents did not produce one of the attest
ing witnesses, who was shown to have been
within the state and known so to be by the
| proponents since the commencement of this
suit, the contestants objected to the suf-
ticiency of the proof of the due execution of
the will, and, as the court ruled otherwise,
the contestant excepted and the case will 90
to the supreme court James n. Johnson
and Heath & Willard for proponents Frank
Plrmey and Stephen G. Shurtleff for con-
testant.
Louisa 7. Smith rs. Joseph Palmer,
Louisa p. Smith, Guardian u.s. Same and
Lester X. Smith rs. Same. These three
cases We're consolidated and were for the
recovery of the wages of Lester X Smith
for five years labor for the defendant. 1t
appeared that the plaintiff, Louisa p Smith,
made an agreement to work for the defend
ant as his housekeeper, with some ar
rangement as to marriage; that after she
had been at the defendants a short time she
concluded some arrangement with defend
ant so that her minor son. Lester X, came
there to work. The defendant claims that
Lester was to work for him until he at
tanned bis majority; that he was to treat
b,gi Us his own son if he was a good and
faithful boy; that he worked for him until
two years after he became of age; that he
settled with him for his two years work
after he became of age, and that he then
proposed to settle with him for his work be-
fore he was of age, and asked the plaintiffs
how they would SETTLE that they asked him
to say how he would settle; that he then
told them that he gave his boy three-year-
old colt when he was of age, and that he
had at that time three colts in the barn, of
which Lester might have his choice; that
both plaintiffs We're satisfied, and that he
delivered the colt in full settlement for this
work, to the entire satisfaction at that time
of both plaintiffs. The plaintiffs credit the
defendant with this colt but deny that the
defendant delivered the colt in settlement
of the claim 1t appeared that the expect
ancy of marriage between the female plain
till and the defendant had considerable to
do with this settlement, and that the failure
of this consideration had much TO do with
the trouble between the parties. That, in
short, this was kind of breach of promise
suit labeled assumpsit for work and labor
OF plalntlitS minor SON. Pitkin Il HuSe and
j. w. Gregory for plaintiffs; E. A. Heath
w. =. Dillingham; and G. f. Clough for de-
fendant.
The next case for trial was that of
Samuel Somerville rs. Alra Pierce This
is an action of general assumpsit The de-
fendant, several years since, had con-
siderable trouble with her then husband, one
Roys, he having sold considerable property
that she claimed as her own, and she
brought several suits to recover for the
same-some eleven in all-and also pc
ttioned for a divorce. The plaintiff claims
that he assisted her in the prosecution of
these suits, paid out considerable money
in expenses and spent good deal of time in
her behalf, for which he has never received
his pay. The defendant disputes his claim
and says she has paid for more than he ever
did in her interest. The plaintiff also claims
that he settled with her few years ago. and
she agreed to pay him a stated sum in full
settlement, but that afterwards she repudi-
ated this agreement and refused to pay him.
This case is now on trial and will last the
greater part of to-day Heath x Willard
and George w. Wing for plaintiff; I. j.
Deavitt and w. p. Dillingham; for de-
fendant.