The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1894-04-04
Washington County Court.

CUTLER ~ BURNHAM " SOPHIA A. DIX
In this case, reported last week. the jury
returned a verdict in favor OF the plaintiffs
for 1884 IA and costs that sum being the
contract price OF 1926 for the monument in
dispute and interest thereon. As the de-
PENDANT has taken numerous exceptions, the
case will be taken to the supreme court.
FRED BLANCHARD " II. q. BOWERS
This is an action of trespass Qudre clduSunl
brought by the plaintiff to recover damages
for the removal by defendant of goods
which plaintiff had in store-house near
the Central Vermont station in Montpelier.
Plaintiff based his right to the store-house
in question upon an unexpired lease which
he had to the premises. Defendant had
purchased the interest OF the Arthur Ban
croft estate, and wished to have the pos
session of the premises, and claimed that
plaintiff had given up his rights under the
lease. The land upon which the building
stands is owned by the Central Vermont
railroad. The verdict of the jury was that
the plaintiff recover $66.67. The case goes
TO the supreme court 5. G. Shurtleff for
plaintiff; Dillingham;, Huse x Rowland for
defendant.
STATE V. FRANK e. HAUsCH.-The bonds
were called and forfeited for bigamy, and a
motion made by the states attorney for a
bench warrant was granted.
STATE V. PATRICK BURGIN Information
charging respondent with three first Of
TO law. In the prese ntation OF the case for
trial, the states attorney found that the
principal witness upon whom he relied
would not testify as he had supposed and
motion made by him that the case be mol
pressed was granted.
STATE V. ED. SINNER Respondent was
charged with assault with intent to kill his
wife Josephine at Waterbury, November
20, 1893 The jury were polled. The prin-
cipal witness of the state was Mrs. Sinner,
and from her testimony it appeared that the
assault was made in the evening; that in
toxicating liquor was furnished respondent
by one Fred Douglass, with whom he played
cards until nine o'clock in the evening,
when, seeing that a row was Imminent,
Douglass took his departure. The respond
ent then locked the door, put the key in his
pocket and quarreled with his wife, beat
ing her severely on the head and kicking
her in the side for a considerable time. AT
midnight she jumped out of the window
and escaped. She passed the night at the
house of neighbor, where she remained
during the sickness which followed. DR.. d.
ID. Grout of Waterbury, the attending
physician, testified as to her physical con-
dition following the occurrence. AT one
time conclusion of the brain was threatened.
The respondent rested his case, calling no
witnesses. The iury's verdict was that the
respondent was guilty of intent to kill, az
charged Upon the coming in of the court
Monday afternoon the respondent was SEN
fenced TO three years hard labor in the
states prison and was fined 81 States
Attorney Z-d S. Stanton, assisted by q. w.
Morse and II. A. Hoar, for the stare; w,
A. Lord, I. r. Gordon and John q Wing
for the respondent.
STATE V. GEORGE BUTTERFLY Liquor
prosecution for keeping nuisance at 122
Main street in the village Of Montpelier
This case was about to be tried last week
when the respondent ended the matter by
rptrapt inc his Olpu a OOiltV and
entering plea of guilty. He has not yet
been sentenced. The case State V. Butter
fly for keeping intoxica ing liquor with in
tent to sell, was continued.
STATE V. EDWIN j. CAMLY.-R Respondent
resides in DuXbury. October Is, 1899, he
testified for the defendant in the trial of the
Pixley arson case in which the state failed
to secure conviction Respondent was
indicted for perjury in that case by the
grand jury at the September term, 1893
He demurred to the Indictment for the rea-
son that it did not properly apprise him of
the charge against him. II is drawn in ac-
cordance with the form given in the law of
1890 Respondents counsel contend that
the law is unconstitutional. The demurrer
was overruled, and the trial began Monday
afternoon. The testimony of the two court
reporters of the PiXley trial revealed the
fact that there was no official record of the
respondents having been sworn as a wit
ness at THAI trial. The testimony given by
hlm-that upon the night OF the PiXley fire
he met Henry Pixley at the junction of the
road near the Newell place on the Brush hill
road in Waterbury-is the vital point in the
case. The state claims that in so testfying
he swOre falsely. The evidence in the Pix
ley trial was introduced by the state, sub.
ject to defendants exceptions There is a
large number of witnesses to be examined
States Attorney Stanton, assisted by ex-
Governor Dillingham; and II. W. Kemp, for
the state; G. f Clough, W. A. Lord and G..
W. Wing for respondent.