The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-05-19
Washington County Supreme Court.

The May term of the Washington county
supreme court began at the courthouse in
Montpelier on Tuesday morning, Hon. JON
athan Ross presiding, with Hon. Russell S.
Taft, Hon. John w. Rowell and Hon. Will
lam III. Walker, assistant judges. Prayer
was offered by Rev. j. III. Hincks, after
which the court was duly opened in form
by Sheriff Atherton. The court docket con-
tanned forty-two entries, of which only four
teen were marked for hearing the most of
the cases being continued to the general
term of the supreme court to be holden at
Montpelier in October next The first case
heard was
Moses E. Howard Us. Randall & Durant.-
vhis was scire facias brought directly to the
supreme court. When the suit was brought
Randall one of the defendants, was living,
and his property was attached in common
with property belonging to the defendant
Durant Subsequently the defendant Ran
dali died, and the suit proceeded against
the defendant Durant alone, with leave to
cite in the administration of Randall The
suit was brought to revive a judgment OBJ
tanned by the plaintiff against the defend
ants previously obtained, and the question
in the case was whether Randall, having
died, the suit died with Randall, and should
have gone before the commissioners of Ran
dalFs estate, so far as Randall was con-
cerned, and also whether the death of
Randall dissolved the attachment on his
(said Randall's( property attached. on said
VIII. NO ueClSlOH. IL L. DurdUU lOT uln-
self; Wing for plaintiff; Heath & Willard
for Randall.
Alice McMurphy and Husband Us. Joseph
w. Harvey.-This case was tried at the
September term 0SS5) of the Washington
county court. After the defendant had
rested his case and the plaintiff had made
one argument for the Jury, the defendant
made motion that the court order ver-
dict for the defendant on the ground that
the complainant had not proved she was
single woman at the time the child was be-
gotten and born. The motion was argued
by both sides. The court ruled that it was
necessary for the complainant to make out
case to prove that she was single woman
when the child was begotten and that no
evidence had been introduced that proved,
or tended to prove, that fact. Thereupon,
and before the court had finally disposed of
the defendants motion, the plaintiffs coun-
sci asked leave of the court to recall the
| plaintiff at that stage of the proceedings
and ask her if she was a single or married
woman, which leave the court granted, and
to which the defendant excepted. The case
was fully argued and the jury returned
verdict of guilty against the defendant. The
court, in allowing the complainant to tes-
| tify as to the fact of whether she was single
or married. permitted the same in their
discretion. On argument the defendant
claimed that the rule of the county court
required that the plaintiff put in all his case
in the opening of his evidence and that in
the close he was limited strictly to evidence
in rebuttal of the defendants s evidence, and
that the rule was arbitrary and binding on
the court and that it had no discretion in
relation to the same. Plaintiffs claimed
that the case came within the discretion of
the court and that there was no error in the
courts allowing the plaintiff to testify in
the manner and at the time she did w. p
Dillingham; and f. f. Palmer for the de-
fendant John G.. Wing for the complainant.
Viola S. Lombard rs. Wheeler j. Batchelder
and Ellen j. Batchelder.-This was an ac-
ton of assault and battery brought by the
plaintiff against the defendants for an as
sault committed on the plaintiff by the de-
fendant Ellen. The case was tried at the
September term, 1885, and judgment was
rendered for plaintiff to recover of defend
ant the sum OF S425 and costs. The case
was tried upon plea of the general issue.
| 1t appeared on the trial that the defendant
Ellen had property in her own right and
had executed paper to the defendant w,
j. Batchelder, her husband to secure him
against any liability to the plaintiff in this
suit and that any charges incurred in this
suit would be paid by the said Ellen. On
trial the defendant Wheeler j. was offered
as witness by the plaintiff, and gave evil
dence tending to prove the plaintiffs ver-
sion of the affair, and IL appeared from all
the evidence that defendant Wheeler j.
used his best endeavors to prevent said
assault upon the plaintiff, and that his wife
made the assault in spite of his resistance
and against his will On the trial the de-
fendant Ellen offered evidence to show the
relations of the plaintiff with said Wheeler
j., that they were of criminal character
and that this provoked her to the ASSAULT
and this evidence was introduced by de-
PENDANTS counsel, they claiming that it had
a proper bearing on the question of eX-
emplary damages, and ON that point the
evidence was admitted. On the argument
of the case the counsel for defendants
claimed that this was not case where ex-
emplary damages should be allowed, as
where a suit is brought against two de-
PENDANTS, one of whom is without malice. il
is held that exemplary damages ought not
to be allowed; in such a case the rule is, so