The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-09-18
Washington County Court.

Leonard Tenney, executor of the will of
Julana Drury, as Heirs of Juliana Drury.-
This was a contested will case. 1t was an
appeal from the probate court from a de-
cree allowing will There was lady
who lived in Barre named Juliana Drury.
She made a will in 1875, appointing DR..
Spaulding executor of that will. In 1880,
DR.. Spaulding died, leaving the will as she
had made it, without any executor. Some
time that summer, or fall, she spoke to her
pastor, the Rev. Mr.. Tenney, then of Barre,
and requested him to act as her executor.
She told him it would be necessary to re-
draft the document, and wanted him to
make new copy. He took the will and
re-wrote it, and took it to her residence in
Barre village for her to sign Thus far the
testimony agreed. IL was claimed by the
plaintiff that all the forms requisite to be
observed were attended to; that the will
was signed in the presence of Mr.. Tenney,
Mrs. Tenney (his wife) and Mrs. Sarah p.
Ayers, who occupied part of the same house
as Mrs. Drury. 1t was also claimed by the
plaintiff that the witnesses signed the will
in the presence of each other. The claim
on the part of the defendants was that Mrs
Ayers did not see the other witnesses attest
the will. Mrs. Ayers herself testified to
her recollection of the matter, and, as she
remembered the occurrence, she did not wait
in the room to see the others sign. In reply
to this Dr. Tenney and his wife both testi-
was claimed by plaintiff that it was an in
stance of forgetfulness on the part of Mrs.
Ayers, she being a lady about eighty years
old at the time when the will was signed
and executed. The jury found in favor Of
the will. and returned verdict sustaining
it. w. +. Dillingham; and o. B. Boyce for
plaintiff; Lamson and Deavitt for defend
ants
A. NJ. Clark u.s. Noah A. Clark. This
was an action of assumpsit brought by the
son of the defendant. 1t seemed that there
was lot of unsettled dicker between the
father and his son, dating as far back as the
war, the first item of the plaintiffs claim
being for town bounty of S625, which the
plaintiff claimed had been left with his pa
rents until he should call for it, He said he
did not care to have the money, but he
wanted ii made sure that his father and
mother would get the benefit of it. The
plaintiff went on and testified in relation to
his items of claim, running along several
years since the war. Mr.. Lamson had
about commenced the cross-examination
when court adjourned for the night. Prior
to taking recess, His Honor Judge Ross
suggested that it was an unpleasant thing
to see a family so divided and at war, and
strongly urged them to get together during
the recess and see II they could not fix
matters up. This bore good fruit, and
when the parties came into court Thursday
morning an entry was made of a." settled and
discontinued without costs"
George Il. Hooker rs. Almon Downing
This was suit in favor of an administra-
tor. Plaintiff set out in his declaration that
he was we'll seized OF certain premises stu-
ate in Barre village, and that the defendant
entered upon the premises and interrupted
him in his possession. The gist OF the ac-
tion was the trespass upon plaintiffs prem
ises. The real matter at issue was the right
in certain spring of water. 1t seems that
the defendant bought of one Crockett, and
had with his land the right to use certain
water. Crockett had purchased Of one
French. There had never been any proper
fencing Of the land so purchased but tub
laid therefrom TO the house now occupied
by the defendant. Recently the defendant
and plaintiff were desirous OF having the
land fenced where the division line was, and