The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-09-30

son Hill. The defendant claimed further
that he never sent any such word as the
PlaintlH evidence tended to show was sent
by him. He denied sending any such mes.
sage, and denied setting the plaintiff 70
WORK. that when he got ready to work ON
the barn he sent word to Emerson Hill 70
come with his son and go to work pursuant
70 the arrangement he claimed had been
heretofore made with Emerson Hill "a
above set forth. These, in the main. were
the respective claims Of the parties. and
each side introduced testimony tending to
support the position taken The plaintiff
positlVely denied being any party to any
such arrangement as was made or claimed
to have been made by the defendant with
his (plaintiH's) father, Emerson Hill Tho
case involved really but one point and tbat
was whether the defendant had sent the
message to plaintiff AS the evidence of the
plaintiff tended to show. The Jury were
evidently of opinion that such word was
sent, ana that the plaintiff did the work i'm
accordance Herewith, and they returned
verdict for the plaintiff for S27 80 damages
and his costs. L. r. Gordon appeared for
the plaintiff; Messrs. j. G. Wing and A. G.
Fay for the defendant.
The case of State u.s. Sanford Slocum was
then called up with a view to having it as.
signed for trial. States Attorney Stanton
stared mat 1t was case that was to be at
tended to Tor the state by j. II Senter
Esq. Mr.. Senter being present, the case
was taken up on question of continuance,
Mr, Shurtleh, appearing for the respondent,
stated that he was not prepared to 90 10
rlal, by reason OF the absence, through
sickness, of very material witness for The
respondent, namely, the respondents
daughter. No affidavit for continuance had
been filed, but the attorney for the state
said he would take Mr.. Shurtleff's state.
meht as the true situation. Thereupon a
continuance was entered
The jurors then present were excused
IRON further service and instructed to re-
port again next Monday week October
5th-at two O'Clock.
James w. Brock IS. the Village of Mont
peller. This was a petition in relation To
the laying of a certain highway, or the con.
unuance OF one already open-Bailev av-
enue. The village officers having declined
to extend the street in question this nett
tlon was brought to the county court in
which the trustees of the village were made
defendan s. Mr.. j. II. Senter appeared for
the petitioner; Mr.. Shurtleff for the village.
The latter insisted the petition should be
dismissed; that the wrong parties were
named in 1t; that it should have been
brought with the selectmen of the town as
defendants. The court sustained this posi
t1on, and dismissed the petition.
Laura Caswell rs. j. Sherman Caswell
This was petition for divorce, setting forth
that the husband of the petitioner was an
Inmate OF the state prison at Windsor,
serving sentence of longer duration than
three years, to wit, imprisonment for life.
When Sherman Caswell was tried for the
murder of Gould, quite a sensation was
aroused in the community by the fact COM
ing to light that Mrs. Laura Gould had mar
rled her husbands slayer. S. &. Shurtleff
ESQ., appeared as counsel for Mrs. Caswell,
and called her as a witness She testified
to her marriage with Mr.. Caswell, that she
was married at the Jail by Hiram A Huse.
a justice OF the peace, on April 10, 1890; that
she knew her husband was in prison at
Windsor, having on several occasions since
her marriage seen him there. In answer to
questions by Mr.. Senter Mrs. Caswell said
she married Caswell after he was convicted
of the murder of her first husband. The
court made some inquiries of Mrs. Caswell,
which elected the fact that at the time she
married Caswell she knew he was to be i'm.
prisoned for long time as to whether it
would be for life or not she had not thought
at all. Mr. Senter said he appeared for Mr..
Caswell who was not opposing the divorce
nor conserving to it, only that he wanted
the court to be in possession of all the facts
of the case. Mr.. Senter cited the statute
saying that when a man is imprisoned for
life he should be considered dead as far as
related to his estate and his marriage I'm
der this law, he thought Mrs. Caswell might
re-marry, and that in matters of property
she stood in the nature of the widow of Mr.
Casweli. MIR. Shurtleff spoke in favor of
granting the bill. He said Mrs. Caswell
at the time of the marriage was the victim
of some strange influence unexplainable bv
her. The court was about to dismiss the peti-
ton when Mr.. Shurtleff asked leave to intro
duce additional testimony on the relations
OF the parties before the killing of Gould.
The court will hear further evidence before
finally disposing of the case.
In addition to the other divorce cases the
following were disposed of John Wallace
as. Margaret Wallace The petitioner re-
sides at Barre and was married in June
1873, to the defendant at A berdeen Scot
land. The couple lived in this country for
ten years For the last five or six wears
Mrs. Wallace be came addicted to the habit
ual excessive use of intoxicants, and
trouble arose. She left her husband and
for time led life Of infamy. About
year ago she left this country and returned
to Scotland, taking one OF her two boys
with her. TIL is boy is now on his way to
rejoin his faith er. The bill was granted on
the ground of adultery. A. G. Fay for Pc
titioner.
Roderick McLeay as. Almina III. McLeay.
The parties were married at Lowell Mass,
in October, 1880, and lived there few
years, in which time the defendant deserted
her husband on several occasions, but they
lived together again. About three years
ago they commenced living together at ST.
Johnsbury, at which place Mrs. McLeay
again left her husband and has not been
back Bill granted on the ground of deser-
tion. A. G. Fay for petitioner.
Henrietta V. Lennett as. John Lennett
The parties were married at Sheldon, March
l, 1855. In 1888 they came to reside in Mont
peier. The defendant formed an attach
ment for girl named Mcleod, and criminal
intimacy occurred between them. Bill
granted on the ground of adultery w. A.
Lord for petitioner.
Carrie NJ Anterior u.s. Jonathan Ather-
ton. In this case divorce was sought
upon the grounds of ntoerable severity,
refusal to support, and desertion. The tes-
timony consisted mainly of Mrs. Atherton's
own statements, and the court not being
fully satisfied at the showing made, ordered
the case left open, and directed that the
husband be summoned to tell his side of the
story. The husband of petitioner being
submitted to an examination by the court
said he had not left his wife without cause,
but was not very definite in explaining
what the cause was. He limited in oblique
terms at improper familiarity between bis
wife and his brother, but this was denied
most emphatically by Mrs. Atherton, who
supplemented her story as at first told by
further statements of her husbands mis-
dongs. Bill granted on grounds of deser-
ton and refusal to support.
r. T. Jewett as, Central Vermont Rail-
road Company. This is case on the new