Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1889-02-18

did not 90 to Hardwick alone that spring
Attended DR.. Dustin's funeral May q.
Had no knowledge of DR.. Corey ever hav-
ing had money Of f. r. or Carrie Bridg-
man. She considered the note false and
the signature IA forgery. Mrs. Corey ex-
amined several OF Dr.. Corey's signatures
and pronounced them genuine.
l.. ID. Thayer swore that he photo
graphed the note and other papers In EN-
larged size. The same was presented TO
the jury for examination.
d. T. Ames. an expert from New York
who was called here in the trial of the
Rowell VS.. Fuller Est, was put upon the
witness stand. He applied similar tests
comparing the signatures Of the note with
the other signatures admitted rs genuine,
also with the hand writing Of Mr.. Corey
in the affidavit. He took each letter in
the fun signature of "Simeon r.. Corey
and proceeded to show how each one In
some popularity differed from the usual
writing of DIR. Corey. He also compared
this signature with the writing In the
body of the note which Mr.. Bridgman
swore he himself wrote and also with
the iurat attached to the affidavit also
written by Mr.. Bridman. After quite an
extended comparison Mr.. Ames express
ed it as his firm conviction that Mr..
Corey bid not write the signature TO the
note, and that the same hand which wrote
the body of the note and the jurat, also
wrote the name "Simeon r. Corey" TO
the note in question.
With the above and some minor testi-
mony the defendant rested.
The plaintiff then put c. Cobb OF Hard
wick on the stand, who swore that i'm
1883 he saw DIR. Corey in front Of the
drug store, F. T. B%ridgman and Mr.. Dut-
ton being present, when DIR. Corey told
Bridgman tina the note was about due
and he would come down and pay t..
j. p. Lamson of Cabot swore that in
going from Greensboro to C%raftsbury in
the spring of 1882 or 1888 he met DIR.
Corey, and, wanting to secure a debt
against f. Z. Bridgman, asked the Doctor
if he owed Bridgman anything. The
Doctor said, "No; 1 owe the girl"
r. G. Kimball swore that he called on
Carrie Brldgman to borrow money in
June, 1888, when she showed him the
Corey note.
A.. II. Way swore that in May or the
first of June saw DR.. Corey in Hardwick;
saw him come from hotel barn and go to
the drug store, then take his carriage and
drive off toward Craftsbury with a stran-
ger. 1t was not DR.. Norcross who was
with him. Judge Perley came into my
store in the spring of 1888 and said that
sTuck," (Bridgman), wanted to turn out
the Carrie B~ridgman note for some L. $.
bonds.
The former testimony of f. p. Board
man was read, and stated that he saw DIR.
Corey and Bridgman about June /, 1881,
and thought Corey had a piece Of paper
in his hand.
Edward Miles swore that he tried to
borrow some money of DIR. Corey in 1888
when he told me he owed Carrie Bridg-
man $500 which he was going to pay,
thought l might get it of her.
Mr.. Brush, owner OF the drug store,
tessided thai DIR. Corey was in his store
May "a. 1888, also June 6, same year..
Had a charge on his books against DR..
c.. on June 6, which Mrs. Corey paid.
DIR. Norcross was recalled and his diary
was produced, where he had an account
of having visited patients, ETC.. with DR..
Corey from May Is, 1888, to May 3lst, at
which time DIR. c. was taken worse and
DIR. Fairman was sent for.
An affidavit was read from Ii. A. Bridg-
man and wife, each of which showed that
they had seen the Corey note in Carrie
Bridgman's hands.
Geo. w. Simpson Of East Craftsbury
swore that he thought the signature TO
the note was genuine.
j. b. Calderwood showed several sig
natures of DIR. Corey and pronounced the
signature on the note genuine.
Eli Metcalf of Hardwick swore that DR..
Corey passed by his house when he tried
to hire money of him, the Doctor having
none TO lend, as he said he had hired
some himself of Carrie Bridgman.
Carrie Bridgman was sworn and pro-
duced a letter from Mrs. L. V. Edwards
which tended to contradict her affidavit.
Also contradicted Judge Perley in regard
to the note being out of her hands.
There was considerable evidence pro
and con used to counterfeit important
witnesses, and the whole ground on both
sides was fought with all the skill Of
able counsel. The case was given TO the
jury on Tuesday, when a verdict was
rendered for the plaintiff.
j. c. Burke, j. L. Dickerman and III.
C. Bates for plaintiff; w. ID. Crane, l..
H.. Thompson and c. A. Prouty for de-
PENDANT.
Some court business was transacted,
when an adjournment Of two weeks was
made-Judge Taft being Obliged TO go TO
Burlington to attend a Supreme Court
| sitting.