Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1889-03-29
WINDHAM COUNTY COURT.

state as E,gene JOhHSOH.-The respondent
Eugene johnson, was indicted by the grand jury
in September 1855 for putting a nuisance m IA
highway in Bratttboro village. jury was i'm
panrrd in this cause Tuesday; went to Brattle-
bOro and examined the locality where the build
ings erected by johnson. The evidence up
ON the part Of the state tended to show that John
son in the fall of lSSI purchased some land Of
Henry {. Phillips, located upon the south side Of
Western avenue, and upon the upper portion ~
what ~ known Us cave bank, and Immediately
constructed dwelling house thereon That the
town, by its seectmen, IN February, lSNs, notified
Mr. johnson to remove his building from the
highway That previous to this notice the select
men had attempted to compromise with johnson
by Offering to widen the avenue and take some
land Without the claimed limits of the street, and
"A los liberal damag' for the additional land tax
en-. This attempt to compromise failed and John
son IN April 1855 built second house upon the
land purchased by him. For the erection Of these
dwellings within the claimed limits of the high
way Johnson was indicted. 1t further appeared
that there were two surveys II said highway,
both made by Henry CLARK, one in lsS5 aud one in
1925 That each of these surveys include within
the limits of the highway portion OF both the
houses built by johnson. The 1925 survey covers
about 10 feet Of Johnsuns west house aud the
ls2S survey about nine feet Of both dwellings.
Judge Wheeler, Geo. H. Clark and Stephen l..
Duttuu, who made surveys, all testified that said
houses were within the surveys. II also appear
ed from the conveyances of the lots upon the
north side of the avenue which were made from
time To time 10y Joseph Goodhue, that the depth
of these lots, distances given In the deeds, car
rird the south side of such lots into, and in some
cases across the sidewalk and TO the limits of the
surveys as made. II also appeared from the tes-
! timony Of several witnesses that the land had
| been gradually caving on and working north,
| and consequently the road In the immediate vi
/ cnty of cave bank and from thence easterly had
| been crowded TO the north That formerly the
| bank extended some 10 or 10 feet further east
] than at the present time and that the road then
! run about the same distance further south. That
| there was a walk or foot path running across
| grass plat where JohnsOn's houses now stand.
/ Thu evidence upon the part of the state further
al In ghp
! 1850 there was fence enclosing any portion of
! the surveyed limits of said avenue
The evidence ON the part of the defence tended
/ 10 SHOW that the surveys as run by the witnesses
] in behalf of the state were not correct. Mr..
! Phelps Of Grafton and Mr. Molcott Of Greenfield,
] Mass each looked over and surveyed the road
! running from Centreville 20 Main street for a pc
| rud of four days each. Il appeared that neither
/ claimed 10 have made correct survey from the
! recorded surveys of 1875 or 1928 These survey
| ors did make survey Of the road as II IL now
/ Travelled, and measured the width thereof az va
| rnus places and show ed that the road was three
] rods wide now used, and IA little more IN front
of defendant dwellings. said surveyors, also az
ter making plan of the road as now used also rep
! resented the record surveys upon their plans ana
! hy separate strips Of paper, without having actu'
| ally run ont the same II appeared also that the
surveys made Ia behalf of the state included
| portion OF the Phillips houses, a portion OF the
! water reservoir and the Charlier wall and from
these facts II was claimed that there was error IN
these surveys The defendants evidence tuflher
tended to show that there had been fence Tor
! many years along the top OF cave BANK ana SUD
| stantially where Mr.. Buckner caused a fence 20
he built after his purchase In 1883, aud also that
/ that there had been no change IN the wrought
| portion of the highway for the past 10 years. II
further appeared from the testimony OF John T.
[ Iiscum that when his father purchased lot up
/ ON the north side of Western avenue, that an iron
min was paced AT the southeast corner Of the lot
and that the same is not as far south as the north
line OF said street as now used IL was claimed
In argument for the respondent that the surveys
as claimed by the state were not correct. That,
If they we're correct, then johnson $ predecessors
i'm title had gained title to the land covered by
said DIV, linps hy fifteen years adverse use prior
10 the statute Of 1888
IL was claimed In behalf Of the state that the
dwellings stood within the limits of the highway,
and thai the public could not have lost its right
in the same by adverse USE, as the same was ney,
er enclosed by fence which was maintained and
continued without interruption until the fence OF
1860 was made
The charge 10 the jury careful painstak-
ing and able one aud the case as given to the 1u
/ ~ was substantially the same as claimed by the
state. Verdict not guilty.
the following divorces were granted: Helen y
/ Putnam vs. Gorham H. Putnam; Jeunte NJ. l.add
. VS. Barzillai Ladd, for intulerabe severity Jen
/ ME VI Penniman vs.. Thomas Pennlnan, Jr., fol
I wilhI refusal To support; Carrie A. Gates ys. Am
/ I.amphrar; Julius A Solterys. Ella Solter Franl
/ II. Robbins vs.. Emma G. Robbins, for wilful de
serton; Geo. W. Downer vs. Lucy A. Downer 70
adultery
The states attorney filed an information agains
Michael J Baker for burglary, 10 which Bake
plead "a lty TWAS claimed In behalf of Baker tina
previous 20 the committing Of the offence charges
=, he had been an honest and trustworthy younl
man; that he was peuitent and hac made restitu
% ton 10 the persons whom he had Wronged, an
that the public under the circumstances dusrei
his sentence should lie such as would tend 10 hi