Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1894-04-12
CHITTENDEN COUNTY COURT.
Westford Cheese Factory Against II. II
jackson for Alleged Watering of Milk.


jackson for Alleged Watering of MILK.
Atthe assembling of County Court Wednes
day morning, the trial of the case of the
Nesttord union cheese factory against
Hiram T. Jackson, which was taken up
Tuesday afternoon, was resumed. Mr..
jackson is charged with watering milk
which he took to the factory in 1891.
Patrick Mahan, the cheese maker of the
factory, James Mahan, G. A. Rice and He
man Rice were the plaintiffs witnesses.
Their examination occupied the time up to
$3.50 o'clock, and, the plaintiff resting its
case, the defendant began the introduction of
testimony, calling Henry Mpcomber to the
witness stand AT the completion of his ex-
animation the hour had arrived for court to
take recess till Thursday.
Nermont's statute makes the watering of
milk a punishable offence, the penalty being
from S2J to 500 for each offence. Mr.
jackson is charged with ono offence.
G. \. Ballard of Fairfax and w. L. Bur
nap appeared for the plaintiff and Henry
Ballard and ID. j. Foster for the defendant.
In the County Court Thursday the trial
Of the case of the Westford Union cheese
factory against Hiram r. jackson was con-
tinued The defence occupied the time put
ting in evidence, five witnesses being exam
ined. They were Ira Farnsworth, Mr.. Cor
liss, Mr.. Whipple, Orvis jackson, son of de-
fendant, and Luther Bates. The deposition
of one Daniel jackson was read. Much time
was frittered away by the lawyers in dis
cussion as to the admissibility of evidence
Mr. Jackson is charged with having watered
milk, which he took to the cheese factory
Men in the interest of the factory after the
milk had been tested and showed evidences
of water, went to Mr.. Jackson's farm and
hid behind a fence on one side of a lane
in which the milk got at night was left un-
til the next morning before being carried to
the factory. From their positions there
they testified that they saw Mr.. jackson
pour water into the cans in which was the
milk. The lane was three rods or so in width.
The defendant does not deny that he ap-
pcared in the lane, as these witnesses for the
plaintiff say, but he claims that he poured
the water on to the side of the cans to cool
the milk the occasion in question being in
August 1891. Witnesses i'll his behalf tes-
titled yesterday that they, on n clear sum-
mer night took positions behind the same
fence where the cans were i'll full view, and
in a test they were unable to tell whether a
man poured water into OF on the side of the
cans.
against II. I. Jackson, on trial in County
Court, was not given to the jury Tues
day as was expected it would be. Evidence
in rebuttal' caused even more objections
than the other testimony, over the admissible
itv of much of which the lawyers disagreed,
and considerable part of the time Tues
day as well as Monday afternoon was con-
sumCd by the discussions On conviction of
one charge of watering milk, the defendant
can only, at the most he fined %1OO. But
notwithstanding the small part money plays,
the case has been fought with more than
ordinary spirit. The defence rested ut the
close of the defendants examination. In
rebuttal plaintiffs recalled Prof. j. l.. Hills,
| director of the State experiment station,
| who explained the workings of a lactOmeter,
which instrument was used in testing the
| milk in question. No new witnesses were
called except Belle Lange, whose people live
near the defendant in Westtord. Her tes-
timony related TO the lightneSs of the night
on which men in the interest of the plain
| tiff hid behind a fence from where they
testified that they saw Mr.. jackson put
water III the milk while it stood in cans.
| The evidence was announced 10 be all in
shortly before , o clock and the arguments
were begun. w. l.. Burnap opened for the
plaintiff speaking an hour. He was fol
| lowed by ID. j. Foster, who also spoke about
an hour in behalf of the defendant. Court
then adjourned.