The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-04-01
Washington County Court.

Joanna Averill US. William Clark.-This
was an action for breach of promise to
marry. The defendant was resident of
Cabot, but was out of the state at the time
of trial, and appeared in court by counsel.
The promise to marry was alleged to have
been made in 1877 and continued till 1882,
to be solemnized on the death of defendants
father, which occurred in December, 1899.
The plaintiff appeared in court with a
daughter about eight years old, which she
claimed was the child OF the defendant.
The defence was denial of any promise
and a settlement, evidenced by receipt for
$500 under seal, executed by the plaintiff,
who claimed that the receipt was obtained
by fraud, that the money was not in settle
inent of the breach of the marriage engage
ment, but was for the support of the child,
and that only $50 was paid by defendant.
Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of
S2,28S.23. Lamson and Shurtleff for plaiu-
tiff; Wing and Fay for defendant
State Us. D. b. Dyer and Others. s.-This il
the conspiracy case" so called, which
was tried last October, and which resulted
IN the discharge of four of the respondents
ana disagreement as to the four who are
now again on trial. The court entered
upon the trial Thursday, March 26 Some
one hundred twenty-five jurors were ex-
amined and on Friday night the following
panel was completed: II, p. Worcester
East Montpelier; Jacob Wardner. ROY.
bury; w. IL. Cardell, Warren; Russell
Z. Collins, Montpeler George w. Grover,
Waterbury; j. o. Freeman, Waterbury: w.
y. Moore, Warren; Otis ii Alden, ,Middlesex.
James e. Cass, Warren; Charles A. Reed
East Montpelier; Alanson Nye, Calais; o.
n. Hills, Duxbury. Counsel for state.
Lamson, Wing and Fay. For respondents.
stanton, Senter, Lord, Dillingham; & Huse
and Grady of New York
The case of State as. Dyer and others
was not on trial Monday on account of the
sickness OF the wife OF Otis III. Alden, one
OF the juTymen, from Middesex.
The court disposed of the following cases.
In case of State US. James Burke the re-
spondent pleaded guilty to the charge of in
toxication, and was fined So and sentenced to
twenty days in the work house. States At
torney stanton desired to have the respond.
ent testify and Mr.. Burke was called to the
witness stand. His attorney, j. G. Wing,
cautioned him to tell the truth. He ap-
peared on the stand with his face badly
bruised as If a victim of a severe assault
and battery. He said he was arrested at
Northheld, February 30, but he finally con-
cluded it was on the 2Sth Of February He
was in Northteld all day, but concluded
that he went from Montpelier at II: 80 p. M.
He got some liquor of the agent at North
field for sick child, but did not drink any
OF 1t. have peeled guilty to being in.
toxicated, but | want had not drank any.
thing that day Hanaford got a bottle of
beer and some whiskey at Spauldings in
Montpelier. l paid for it. l went with
Hanaford. Spaulding said he would not
sell liquor to me but sold IL to Hanaford."
He also said he bought some liquor at B.
A. McKenna's in Montpelier before leaving
Tor Northheld. Mr.. Burke was committed
TO Jail, where he will remain until taken 10
.he work house at Rutland. In case OF
State Us. j. A. Locklin notice was given
hat the respondent would not be able TO
jry his case this term on account of sickness.
hA fHan al fhaA
'esumed at eleven O'Clock Tuesday fore.
loon. The examination of Colonel Mcclure,
which began on Friday was concluded Tues
lay afternoon.