The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-03-25
Washington County Court.

In the case OF CLINTON E. French Us. D.
Edgar French the jury gave the plaintiff
verdict for S16.50. This was the third item
of the plaintiffs account against his brother,
for $40 claimed to have been loaned to the
defendant in 1880, and interest thereon. G..
w. Wing for plaintiff; A. G. Fay and S. G.
Shurtleff for defendant. This was case
in which the firm of Heath & Fay were
counsel originally.
In the case of Betsey H. Arbuckle u.s.
Charles Templeton, the jury We're several
times sent back, having come into court dis
agreed. The last time they came in, the
court was in need of a jury to try the next
case and they were discharged from further
consideration of that case. 1t is understood
they were pretty nearly evenly divided on
the merits of the case.
Mrs Cordelia X. Kimball as. Homer G.
Hopkins.-The plaintiff brought this suit to
recover compensation for injuries she
claimed to have received from an assault
made upon her by the defendant. The par
ties live at the corner of Spring and Elm
streets in the village of Montpelier and own
adjoining lots. On the 18th day of August
last, the plaintiff testified, she was stand
ing on her own land looking at some ma
sonry work that was going on. Men were
at work pointing up wall on a new tene-
ment house that had been recently built on
plaintiffs land. At the same time the de-
fendant was at work busily making a fence
that, when completed, would have some-
what nterfered with the work on the wall.
According to the claim of Mrs. Kimball,
she had few words with Mr.. Hopkins,
and without any warning he suddenly
raised the hammer he was at work with and
struck her severe blow on the left hand.
She supposed from the condition of the
palm of the hand that it must have been on
the fence. Some of the men who were at
work at the time for Mrs Kimball corrob.
Grated her testimony as to the assault and
battery Doctors Macomber and Kemp
were called to state as to the condition of
the hand, and from their evidence it APP
peared the bones of the hand were broken
at the main Joint of the index finger with
the hand Plaintiff also claimed to have
received blow upon the left breast. Her
account of the way and manner in which it
was received was that Hopkins struck her
another blow which she warded with her
hand and so it struck her ON the breast.
Ohe of her witnesses swore that Mr.. Hop
kins had made blow at her head, but that
she, stepping back had received the blow
on the breast instead. Dr. Kemp testified
to the bruise ON the breast, and Mrs. KIM
balls daughter, Mrs. Puffer, testified as to
the pain and trouble caused her mother by
the last-named blow, which required the
frequent application of alcohol and other
liniments. The claim of the defendant was
that some time ago Mrs. Kimball built
new house, and last season commenced to
construct place on the westerly part of the
lot. At the time of the commencement of this
construction a fence existed on the line,
which Mr. Hopkins had built on what he
claimed as the line More or less quarrel
ing and disturbance occurred between Mrs.
Kimball and defendant about that fence,
and it was finally torn down by those in the
employ of Mrs. Kimball, whose workmen
then dug ditch and built wall. After
the building of this wall Mr.. Hopkins
started to put mp picket fence. While he
and his hired man were at work on this
fence, and before it was completed, Mrs.
| Kimball brought on lot of workmen to
work on the wall. That Mrs. Kimball came
and fiourished around Mr.. Hopkins with
her hands and fist, calling him some names,
telling him she had taken. the other fence
| down and would have this one down, and
that she thereupon commenced to push the
! fence over into the defendants lot. That
observation-disclosures her meddling with
the fence. That she persisted and that he
raised his hammer and struck towards hei
hand, not intending to hit it, but thinking
she would pull her hand away; but as she
did not do so, the hammer struck her a
light blow, and that that was the only blow
he struck her. The claim of the defendant
was that he was only exercising the right o.
defending his property and possession, and
| that he used no more force than was neces
sary to enable him to successfully do so
The Jury took the case on Saturday morn
ing, and after an absence of an hour or 81
brought in a verdict for the plaintiff in the
sum of S156 damages and her costs. Wing
& Fay for plaintiff; L. j, Deavitt and s. @
Shurtleff for defendant.