Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1891-01-02
MADISON COUNTY COURT.

recess over Christmas.
Two cases which were the first ones
in order for trial were disposed of with
out trial. These were the State against
NJ. Il. Butterfield and Frank Forest, for
assaulting Henry Jondro last August.
Both respondents were in court and with
drew their pleas of not guilty, thereupon
pleading guilty. In Butterfield's case
Mr.. Wilds, representing the State, said
that during the vacation an agreement
had been reached between Butterfield
and Jondro, the complaining witness, in
pursuance of which Jondro was to be
paid something in the way of damages as
a settlement of the private suit which
Jondro had caused to be instituted and
that Jondro was satisfied with the settle
ment. He further stated that this was
the first affair of the kind in which the
respondent had been mixed up, and that
and orderly citizen. Mr. Wilds therefore
recommended that fine of $50 and the
costs, about $50 dollars more, be i'm
posed, and the case was thus disposed of.
The fine and costs were paid, and But
terrified was discharged. w. II. Bliss
and Henry Ballard had been his counsel.
In the Forest case, Mr.. Wilds stated to
the court that the respondent was, so far
as the State was aware, only a minor
participant in the assault, and, as he had
been in Jail nearly three months already,
he recommended that he be released on
his own recognizance, the indictment to
still hold over him as an assurance of
his future good behavior. This recon-
mendatlon was also accepted, and Forest
was accordingly discharged from custo-
dy. A. p. Upper and j. f. Stapleton
had acted as his counsel.
The case of State VS.. Lindolph L. Cas-
well was then called on, but there was
some delay in making beginning of the
trial. Caswell did good deal of talk
ing and wanted the case put over, as he
could not get some of his witnesses here,
and had no counsel. States Attorney
Bliss said that he had already arranged
for the attendance Of some of the re-
spondent's witnesses at the expense of
the State, and would do so in the case of
other witnesses. The court ordered the
case to go to trial. Frank L. Fish of
Vergennes had been assigned to defend
Caswell and Mr.. 5 ade was to assist him,
but both of these gentlemen stated to the
court that they had been given to under
stand that Caswell was able to pay his
counsel if he chose to do so, and they
therefore declined to defend him for moth
ing. Caswell stoutly maintained that he
had no resources with which to pay. a
chance was given him to see about get
ting counsel, and he consulted Mr.. Fish,
Judge Slade and Mr.. Ballard in turn, but
they one and all refused to act in his be-
half without being given security that
they would be paid. At length Judge
Start settled the question by assigning
Mr.. Wilds to defend the respondent. and
the trial was begun.
Caswell was charged with stealing Il
sheep. valued at $40, from William Gal
vim in Ripton, where both parties reside
on the 18th day of November last, and
had been confined in Jail since his indict
ment by the grand jury early in the term
having been unable to furnish the Sl5(
bail under which he was placed so thai
he could have chance to procure affida
Wits warranting continuance of the
case. Galvin's eve strayed away tire,
days after he purchased her and was sale
to have been seen on Caswells premises
Caswell denied this, but the suspicious
|, were so strong against him that searcl
warrant was sworn out and his plac,
was searched. Under manure heal
and under some hay on the barn foo
| were found fresh blood and entrails be
leved to be those of sheep, also small
pieces of flesh, tallOw and wool; but n,
+ sleeps carcass was discovered. Caswel
was arrested and upon examination be
: fore Justice G. j. Hodges he was boun
over to the county court.
D Only the States evidence in chief an
, that of the respondent himself was 60
! in on Tuesday, and the trial was contir
ued on Wednesday. The trial, however
. was not resumed until two other case
had been finally disposed of. Thes
: were State VS.. Norman Gotta and Stat
S vs.. Elmer Phair, the particulars of who's
trials we have already published.
5 The jury in Cota's case, it will be re
i membered. failed to agree, standing 81
: to six, one six for assault with intent
. kill and the other six for common assau
!, upon Stephen Bates, the city sheriff
n Vergennes. States Attorney Bliss Ell
IS tered mol pros. in the case and filed il
e stead an Information charging the pri
oner with obstructing, beating an
wounding the officer, Gotta having mac
It known his willingness to plead guilty
n such charge. This he did. Mr.. Ba
l. i