Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1894-06-21
IN OUR OWN STATE.
SHORT STORIES OF VERMONT
HAPPENINGS
Windsor County Court.


The case of state VS.. Dickerman
reached the jury on Wednesday, the
9th, and after an absence of three
and half hours, they returned YER
dict of not guilty. The other indict-
ments against him were not pressed,
and he was discharged. This ended an
important trial of nine days, and at a
cost to the state of large sum. The
verdict is sustained by the consensus
of opinion of court, bar and spectators.
The evidence tending to establish the
guilt of Mr.. Dickerman was too slimsy
to stand alone and if the defense had
not introduced any testimony, the re-
suit must have been an acquital. Judge
Dickerman of Orange county, the ven
cradle father of the respondent, was in
court during the trial an interested spec
tator. The respondent has been mer-
chant at South Royalton. 1t appeared
that fire had started in the night in
the third building from the premises of
Mr.. Dickerman and that 1.-THE air was
filled with cinders sparks and burning
shingles and the claim made by the
prosecution was that Mr.. Dickerman
went into his own barn and started a
on the hay SO as to be sure and have
his buildings burned. The original fire
in fact spread to and destroyed Mr..
Dickerman's buildings. The motive
alleged was to obtain the money on an
over-insurance. This was strenously
and effectually denied by the respond
ent. 1t now remains to be seen what
the insurance com panies interested in
the loss will do Suits are pending
against them.
Frank Bragg has been released from
Jail on his own recognizance on account
of sickness. Martha Lee of Windsor, a
colored damsel, pleaded guilty to the
charge of setting malicious fires, and
was sentenced to the reform school dur
ing her minority. J. G. Caswell of
Taftsville is to be tried for arson. There
were cases settled ON Friday forenoon
very unexpectedly without verdict,
and that brought to the front the case
of Rollin Amsden VS.. John Atwood.
This was an action of assumpsit and
arose in Windsor. The plaintiffs claim
is for meal and feed sold, for saving
logs and rent and power for a chair
shop in his building at the great dam.
The defendant has an offset for alleged
damages on breach of contract to saw
logs. Plaintiff denies any breach of
y
afternoon, 8th inst. G. A. Davis and
w. B. G. Stickney for plaintiff j. w.
Wilson and j. G. Enright for defendant
In johnson VS.. Boston and Maine rail-
road Go. the defendant has paid the
plaintiff his damages and costs, and the
case is settled. 1t was an action to re-
cover for injuries to brakeman while
coupling cars at Lebanon, n. H. The
list of causes standing for trial by jury
was called on Saturday morning and
disclosed enough business to occupy the
jury about three weeks.
When the court convened on Monday
afternoon, 18th inst, the trial of Rollin
Amsden VS.. John P. Atwood was re-
sumed and the examination of the de-
PENDANT was taken up and continued
through that session. Numerous COM
plicated questions oflaw were raised by
counsel for plaintiff and on Tuesday
were argued pro and con by counsel.
These questions were too numerous and
Obstruse to be of interest to the general
public and we do not undertake to give
them. The result was that the case
was reduced to certain questions of law
and ON consideration ofthose questions,
the court directed verdict for the
plaintiff for the whole amount that he
claimed with interest from the date of
his writ. Exceptions were taken by
defendant. g. A. Davis and w. b. c.
Stickney for plaintiff; j. G. Enright
and j. j. Wilson for defendant.
In the case of Vittum VS.. Esty, the
court ruled as matter of law that the
suit was prematurely brought and nom
suited the plaintiff. This case will go
to the supreme court on exceptions to
this ruling. The next case tried was
that of Frank W. Watkins VS.. Wallace
s. Rist an action for trespass by cattle
and sheep. Mr.. Watkins lives in
Felchville and Mr.. Rist, i'm Cavendish.
They are adjoining owners of pasture
lands in Reading and were at logger
heads about the repairs of the line fence.
The case finally came to the point that
it was the plaintiffs duty to maintain
the east end and defendants duty to
maintain the west end of this fence.
Defendants cattle got into plaintiffs
pasture and the contention was whether
they came in over plaintiffs or defend
ants part of the fence The iury found