The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-11-13

court adjudged the plea Of respondent in
SUFFICIENT and sustained the demurrer of
the state. A plea OF not guilty was entered
stanton for state; j. w. Gordon for re-
spondent
STATE v. CARLOS MARTIN of Warren
This was q hearing on the respondents
demurrer to an indictment charging him
with melting to commit perjury. Judge
Thompson held that the statutory form does
not cover offenses of this kind, and there
fore the indictment must charge all the es-
sential elements of common law jndict-
ment. The demurrer was sustained, the in
dictment was adjudged insufficient and
quashed, and the respondent was discharged
States Attorney Stanton for state; w. A
Lord, II. A. Huse and j. H. Senter for re.
spondent.
STATE v. MALooM MoAULEY.-It was
claimed by the state that respondent had
been summoned to appear as a witness in
case tried at Barre before Justice of the Peace
H. w. Scott, in which the state was plaintiff
and John Waycott, respondent, on July g.
1895, at the office OF Richard A. Hoar, at
which McAuley did not appear. The re-
spondent maintained that the service of the
subpoena upon him was after the trial had
begun, and that he came as soon as he had
changed his clothes. Verdict, guilty; fine
$50 and costs. States Attorney Stanton for
state W. A. Boyce for respondent.
STATE v. FRANK HUNTINGTON AND HER
both tried together, as the evidence in both
cases was the same. They were charged
with breach of the peace, committed at
Maple Hill (Msrshfield) on the evening of
March rs, 1895, being an assault upon David
Spcer in the dooryard of James Mcknight
at whose house Spirer was boarding.
Spicer claimed to have been cut on the left
temple, and also claimed that he received a
slight cut in his breaSt--the cut there being
shown by the cut in the shirt which he was
wearing at the time, and which was pro-
duCed in court. The row began when
Spicer came out of the house, and while he
was endeavoring, as he claimed, to send the
respondent (Wheeler, who is his nephew
home, lie WAS assaulted by them, claiming
that they were under the influence of lquOr.
1t was claimed for the defence that Wheeler
was not a participant ia the row, and that
Huntington acted in self.defence. The jury
returned a verdict of guilty in both cases.
Wheeler was tinedS30 and Huntington S75.
The costs of the witnesses debentures were
divided. The other costs follow as usual.
The fines were paid on Saturday. State s
Attorney Stanton for state; G.. w Wing
and w. A. Lord for respondents.
STATE V. DAVID IcCLoUD-two cases
in which the respondent was indicted by
the grand jury in 1894 for obtaining liquor
OF the Mortified liquor agency under false
pretences, and for selling intoxic ating
liquor, were, on motion of States Attorney
STATE V. GEORGE w. WING 1t was
agreed by States Attorney Stanton and the
respondent and his counsel (W A. Lord
that the case should be submitted to the Jury
upon sta Iements made to them. The indict-
ment found by the late grand jury charged
the respondent, as mayor of the city of
Montpelier with the failure to issue to a
constable or police officer the warrant for
the killing of unlicensed dogs within ten days
from May 10 as required by law. 1t was
conceded by the respondent's counsel that
his client was mayor and that the warrant
had not been issued, but it was claimed that
1t was mere act of fOrgetfulness on his
part AS to the forgetfulness, Mr.. Stanton
replied that he had no proof that it was
otherwise. The court ruled that the state
had shown no refusal on the part of the re-
spondent to issue the warrant, and that no
wilful neglect had been shown on his part,
and, for these reasons, directed that the
jury return verdict of not guilty, which
was done, and the respondent was dis
charged.
STATE v. DAVID SPICER.-This case grows
out of the prosecution of Huntington and
Wheeler, an information having been filed
against respondent by the states attorney
Huntington on March 26, 1895. He pleaded
not guilty. Bail was fixed at $500, which
was furnished, and the case was CO ntipued.
His counsel was j. w. Gordon and r. l..
Laird.
STATE v. JOHN r. McWILLIAMs. - Re-
spondent pleaded guilty to having kept a
liquor nuisance at the Central Hotel, Barre
May 8, 1895. The case grew out OF sue
cessful search and seizure. He was fined
$50 and costs, and given three months i'm
prisonment in the house of correction, with
alternative sentence to follow II fine is not
paid. The other case against him, for sell.
ing, was continued. His place OF business
was adjudged to be nuisance and was or.
dered closed. Stanton for state; Lord for
respondent.
STATE v. NETTIE j. HUNT.-Responden
in July last, while employed as domestic
in the family Of Fred Davis of Northfield
committed the larceny of trfiing articles
and small sum OF money, She withdrew
her former plea of not guilty and pleaded
guilty to larceny OF valuables amounting to
ST. She was fined $40 and costs amount
ing to S24 IL. with an alternative sentence
in the house OF correction If fine is not paid
j. G. Wing was her counsel.
STATEv. ANTONIO RossI.- Respondent was
indicted for having broken open and es-
capped last March from the city Jail Of Barre,
where he had been confined on conviction
OF petit larceny. About month after the
escape respondent was arrested in Con.
necticut and turned over to Officer Blu.
chanan, who brought him back to Vermont.
| The respondents counsel moved for YER
dict on the ground that there was no legal
established city jail AS there had been
nothing shown that the Jail had been es-
tablished by vote Of the old township, or
that there was a jailor to whom a legal
commitment could be made, the court or.
dered the jury to return verdict of not
guilty, which was done, and the respondent
was discharged. States Attorney Stan
| for state; j. W. Gordon and W. A. Lord
for respondent
STATE v. CARLOS MARTIN of Warren
Respondent on his previous plea of guilty
of one first offence of furnishing intoxicat-
ing liquor was sentenced Tuesday afternoon
to pay fine of $50 and costs, and to be
confined thirty days in the house Of correc.
ton at Rutland.
STATE v. HARVEY BADGER, for assault
and battery, is now on trial.