The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1888-04-04
Washington County Court.

no agreement. The court sent the jury
back for further consideration of the case
Thursday morning the jury still disagreed
and were discharged. The respondent was
remanded. Bail has been fixed at $3.50
States attorney and Shurtlen for state
Heath & Fay and Lord for respondent.
On the coming in of the court Wednesday
afternoon announcement was made OF the
death of Hon. Timothy p. Redfield. Court
was adjourned for all purposes except to re-
ceive the verdict in the Rich case.
State as. Eugene f. Wight. This case has
excited much interest. The jury were i'm
paneled Wednesday forenoon, but owing to
the adjournment of court in the afternoon
trial did not begin till Thursday morning.
The Indictment was found by the grand
jury at the September term, 1881, and
charged the respondent with the larceny of
a horse, buggy, harness. lap-robe and whip
from the livery of George n Cove in
Waterbury in May, 1881. The respondent
was arraigned at the last September term and
pleaded not guilty. The state introduced
Cove, who testified that on Friday, May q,
1881, he let the team described in the in
dictment to the respondent to go to More
town, which team never was returned; that
the team was charged to him as l.. Hill,
Texas; that he began search the next Mon
day, going to Moretown, Waitsfield and
Warren; that the only trace which he was
able to find of his team was in Moretown,
about one-half mile from Waterbury village,
on what is known as the Stuart hill road at
the foot of Eaton hill. Here a wood road
led through small ravine. Following
tracks which he recognized as made by his
buggy, from the three-fourths-inch tires of
the wheels, about ten rods from, and out of
sight Of the road, he found where horse
had been hitched, and evidently for some
time. He recognized the tracks of the
horse from the size of the shoe and from the
fact that she toed in. Afterwards he got
out 800 hand-bills and distributed them
where they would do the most good. He
also went to various places in search of his
team. In the latter part of July he heard
that there was prisoner in the Tombs in
Boston that answered to the description
given in the hand bills. He went there and
out of seven prisoners Identified the re-
spondent as the man who stole his team.
He saw respondent alone in his cell aud
asked him to tell him where he could find
his team. Respondent said that he would
not tell him then but might at another time,
and that if he went to Colorado he would
give him Cove paper telling him where
he could find his team. Before he had an
opportunity to see respondent again he had
started for Colorado in company with an
officer. He next saw respondent in 1884 in
Massachusetts, in the Cambridge street Jail:
he next saw him last fall in the Montpelier
Jail, and had not seen him since till he saw
him in court. The state produced a num-
Der of Waterbury witnesses, who identified
the respondent as the man who stole
Goves team in 1881 The most important
witness was Mark Kennedy, who had a
talk with the man in Gove's stable for about
two hours in the forenoon of May ~.
He testified that the conversation was of
the West. He also saw him again in
the afternoon. His testimony was corrobo-
rated by others who were near and who saw
and heard them. All Of the states wit
nesses thought the respondent heavier now
than in 1881. 1t appeared that the team
left Gove's stable at two P. NJ May y. 1t
also appeared that the man who stole the
team registered at Bishops Hotel as l.. Hill,
Texas, but the register could not be pro-
duced as it could not be found. The state
also produced Daniel NJ. Hayes, inspector of
police, of Lowell, Mass, who testified as to
the whereabouts of respondent from July,
1881, to the time he was surrendered to YER
mont last fall. He also testified as to an
admission made by respondent that he stole
Gove's team en- route from Colorado to
Massachusetts, while under his charge.
The respondent admitted the larceny of the
team, but claimed that the identity of l..
Hill with the respondent was not estab-
lished. He produced A. j. Brown, station
agent at Waterbury, who could not identify
respondent with the l.. Hill he saw in 1881.
He thought respondent heavier man,
thought his shoulders broader and could
not reconcile the nose of respondent with the
nose of Hill. Mrs. Kate Cullen, who in
1881 was table girl at Bishops Hotel and
who had glance at the "Texas fellow"
could not identify him with respondent.
The respondent took the stand. He testi-
fed that he was born at Barnard, VT; that
he had brothers and sisters living; that his
early years were spent in Pomfret; that he
was heavier in 1881 than now; that he had
spent nine years in the West driving and
herding cattle; that in May 1881, he was in
Michigan, in the employ of his brother; that
in June, 1881 he visited relatives in Wood
stock, VT, and in Newport, n. H.; that he
was arrested as fugitive from justice and
taken to Colorado, where he stayed till
July, 1884, and was then taken to Massa-
chusetts to answer to a charge there; that
he was tried in Lowell and Cambridge that
on second trial he was convicted. He de-
MED having made any admissions to either
Cove or Hayes and said that he never was
in Waterbury, except when passing through
on the cars. The respondents cousin testi-
fed that Hayes did not testify as to the
admissions at the Lowell trial, but did at
the Cambridge trial. The charge of Judge
Rowell was fair but searching. The case
was given to the jury at eleven A. M Satur-
day The jury were ont about twenty min
utes, when they returned with a verdict of
guilty The case was well conducted on
both sides. The state prevented the re-
spondent from saving any exceptions of
value. The counsel for respondent, by their
objections, kept out much damaging testi-
mOny. state attorney ana w. 4. Dining
ham for state; Heath & Fay for respondent.
State Us. Charles Getchel Respondent
was arraigned Monday afternoon to answer
to an information filed against him charging
that in June, 1887, he killed four cows be-
longing to one Martin Newton of Marshtield.
1t seems that he is only seventeen years of
age; that he worked for said Newton; that
Newton had scolded him once or twice, and
that he had heard some boys tell how cows
might be killed. Further than this his
motives did not appear. His parents are
both dead and he has never had the adj
vantages of schooling His guardian has
paid for the cows. The court, considering
the youth of respondent, sentenced him to
two years in the house of correction, to pay
cost of prosecution and to stand committed
until sentence is complied with. States
attorney for state; g. w. Wing for re,
spondent.
State as. Michael Marion, appellant. This
case rested upon a disclosure made by
one Ahern, "A stone-cutter of Barre, charg
ing respondent, who has a saloon in Bur
lington, with selling Intoxicating liquor al
said saloon to said Ahern, whereby he was
arrested at Barre March for being intox
Gated At the justice trial said Ahern made
said disclosure. The respondent denied
the charge and introduced a number Of
,l,, l,, 4; a