The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-12-25

The case turns against TIE soldier 10y
reason of the conflicting testimony Of
his witnesses. Still one, on reading the
testimony, as conflicting as it is, has
the impression that after all the soldier
may have received his injury, as
claimed, in his military service. 1t is
a long time for witnesses TO remember
all the details of matters in which they
were not interested. If any comrade
of Mr.. Valley who reads the decision
should be cognizant of facts that would
clear up this doubtful case he would
confer a favor on needy soldier by in
forming Mr.. Valley: "The appellant
enlisted September II, 1862, and was
discharged August 5, 1868. He filed
3, 1880, alleging disability from a by.
drocele caused by excessive labor and
strain in helping TO draw car loaded
with equipments from Catletts Sta
ton to Union Mills, Va. The applica-
ton was rejected on the ground that
there is no record or other satisfactory
evidence showing that the alleged
hydrocele was incurred in the line of
duty. From that action he appeals by
his attorney, Il. j. Deavitt, Montpelier,
VT, stating that great injustice has
been done him, as he has furnished the
testimony of no less than seven of his
comrades to show when and where his
disability originated. Since the appeal
was filed special examination has
been made for the purpose Of ascer-
tanning the value of the testimony filed,
the result of which, in your opinion,
does not warrant favorable action upon
the claim. In his statement before
the special examiner the appellant al
legged that he was one of a detail of
about a hundred men who were sent to
draw car from Catlett's Station to
Bull Run Cor Uniop) Bridge. Ropes
were attached to each end of the car,
with which they pulled or held back,
according to the grade. While going
down grade towards big culvert
near Bristol Station they had to hold
back with all their strength, and he
felt a sensation in the lower part Of
the right groin, as if something had
ripped or torn apart He fell out Of
the line, and did not pull any more, but
walked right along with the men and
kept talking with them;' did not speak
of the pain to any one until the next
day; looked at the spot, but could not
see anything; it was not red or discol-
ored; three or four days after the in
jury noticed little lump over the in
iured part about the size of small
hickory nut. About the time the lump
was making its appearance he showed
| it to Peter Williams, a terminate, and
told DIR. Billiard that he had an awful
pain in his side, but did not show the
affected part to him. The only person
he ever showed it to while in the serv-
ice, so far as he remembers, was Peter
Williams. The breach kept growing
until, couple of years later, it was the
size of hens egg. 1t appears from
the last medical examination that he
now has severe hydrocele on both
sides, and also double inguinal hernia,
and easily reducible. 1t would seem,
from his statement, that it was the
right inguinal hernia which developed
during his service, and not the hydro
cele. A comparison of his statement
with the testimony of his comrades re-
vealed many discrepancies and contra.
dictions, some of which may be BRIT fly
pointed out: The appellant says he
showed his rupture to no one except
| Peter Williams while in the service.
Williams swears that he never saw it and
knows nothing about it, except what the
appellant told him. John G. Barber ties.
titles that he saw il the second day after
it was incurred, swollen as big as
depOnent's two fists. The appellant
has stated that there were no OBJ
jective symptoms of the injury for three
or four days after it was received, and
that he then noticed little lump in
the groin, about the size of small hick-
DRY NUT Barber is reported to be unre-
liable, and his testimony confirms the
report. Charles Sidney, in an affidavit
filed in 1888, testified that the appellant
bowels, under the circumstances al
legged. In subsequent affidavit he
stated that after said injury the appel
liant was troubled with what he and APP
pellant both supposed to be breach.
On special examination he couldn't tell
whether the injury was in the back, OF
spine, or side, or abdomen, and had nc
impression as to whether it caused a
breach or not. Archibald Miller
swears that the appellant showed the
injury to him while in the service, but
has no personal knowledge of the cir
cumstances under which it was in
Cured. Horace Gray, who had testi-
fled in an affidavit that be was present
with the appellant when he was in
jured, told special examiner in 1855
that he only knew that the appellant
was thrown down and hurt his back,
never knew or heard of his having any
other disability. Peter Williams, in his
deposition before the special examiner
swore that he was present when the
appellant was injured; 'helped him uE
and put him on the car, as he was un'
able to walk He afterwards com
planned of his left side' it was neal
the heart 1t was only after he had
been confronted with an affidavit made
by him in 1886 that he was able to re-
member that the appellant complained
of breach Joseph Spring tesiilie'
to seeing the rupture after the appel
lant's discharge, and that the latter tolC
him he got hurt by jumping ovel
! IL - -,