Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1891-06-26
AN EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION.

Ripton people have been a good deal
interested recently in report that Hor-
ace and Henry Ferris had been held to
bail on a complaint of Grand Juror Boyn-
ton for highway robbery. The matter
eliminated on Saturday last in a hearing
before Justice Young, which resulted in
the eXoneration and discharge of the re-
spondents. At that hearing the States
attorney somewhat unexpectedly, it
would seem, appeared and took charge
of the prosecution, which seems up to
that time to have been carried on under
the advice of A. G.. Chandler. The COM
plant, which was issued May %, and
was in the handwriting of j. 5. Chand-
Ter, charged the respondents with assault
ing and robbing George Fisher, Jr, and
Frank Durfee of 81 in money on the 2lst
of May. The least penalty for this Of
fence is three years in the State prison.
1t appears that another count was added
to the complaint after its return on the 23d
of May, charging the respondents with
maliciously threatening to accuse Fisher
and Durfee of the crime of catching trout
under six Inches long, with the intent to
eXtort money, and thereby eXtorting 81.
The highest penalty for this offence is
two years in the State prison. This last
Chandler. The respondents were held to
bail on May %, and the hearing contin-
ued to June 20. At this hearing j. S.
Chandler appeared as counsel for the re-
spondents and no evidence was adduced
on their behalf. From the evidence OF
Fisher and Durfee and others called on
the part of the State it appeared that on
the 21st of May Fisher and Durfee, while
fishing on the Huntley brook near Nc
Dowell's, were overtaken by the Ferris
brothers, who took, counted and meas
ured their trout; that they had about &C
trout, which the Ferris brothers claimed
on their measurement to be less than six
inches long; that the Ferris brothers
claimed that Fisher and Durfee had
caught part of these trout on the land OF
Horace Ferris, which they claimed tc
have been posted according to law. The
matter was then arranged by Fisher anC
Durfee agreeing to pay the Ferrises 81
each within two days. The fishermen
claimed and testified that this money was
to be paid to prevent the Ferrises from
complaining of them for catching trCu
under six inches long: but it appeared
as above stated. that the Ferrises claimed
that the fishermen had trespassed on Fer
ris's land and caught his fish and thai
there was talk about that trespass at the
time of the agreement for settlement
Fisher and Durfee and Fishers brother
testified that they measured the fish after
they got home and that none of then
was under six inches. The next day
Fisher and Durfee appeared at Ferris
place with a. G.. Chandler, paid the 5:
and took receipt therefor. This was
all the material testimony adduceC
at the hearing. At the close of the
States testimony the State sattorney
stated to the court that there wa:
no evidence tending tosupport the
first two counts of the complaint, which
were for robbery: but he claimed that il
the court should find that none of the
| fish was under six inches and that the re
spondents so knew and made threats Of
prosecution and got the promise of set
Element on that ground, and not as a set
Element for the alleged trespass, the re
spondents ought to be held. The justice
did not find any misconduct on the par
of the respondents and they were accord
ingly discharged. 1t appeared that a
G.. Chandler was employed by the CRANE
Juror to assist him and was expected tt
conduct the prosecution, but by reason
of the appearance of the States attorney
took no part in the hearing except as
witness. Many iudicious people thinl
that there was in this case a flagran
abuse of the States process in accusing
the respondents of high crime withou
any Just cause.