Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1895-12-12
He told them that they had right to


that any private citizen had the right to lay
before the grand jury any mfractions ofthe
criminal laws that might come to their
knowledge.
He further charged them to inquire into
the condition of the county Jail, the expen-
diture by the towns of the u. S. surplus
revenue, the care of cemeteries and the
condition of highways.
Fred w, Marsh of Chester was appointed
foreman, and the others are: Barnard,
Charles w Graves Bethel, Frank Wright
Bridgewater, Bezaleel Wood; Cavendish,
George S. Hill; Hartford, Everett j. Wal
lace; Ludlow, Erwin j. Whitcomb Nor
witch, Samuel Hutchinson; Pomfret, +. Y.
Dana; Royalton, George Preston; Spring
field, Levi r, White; Stockbridge, John
Durkee; Weston, George II. Coburn;
West Windsor, Galen c. Waite; Windsor,
E. f. Chadbourne; Woodstock, talesmen,
O. ID. Richmond, Charles f. Woodruff,
Jasper Hazen.
The docket of civil causes was called.
The 46 causes that were set for trial by jury
soen melted away to II. The so civil
causes set for hearing by the court were so
disposed of by settlements, continuances,
and references that only AZ remained for
trial. Some lively discussions arose on
motions to continue and upon the construc
| ton of the rules.
The first trial by jury was commenced on
the afternoon of December 8. 1t was from
Reading, the case of Frank w. Watkins
VS.. Wallace S. Rist, an action of trespass-
ing upon the freehold by cattle and sheep
OF the defendant. This case was once tried
at May term, 1894. B. A. Davis and w.
E. johnson for plaintiff Stickney and Sar-
gent for defendant. The case reached the
jury that evening and after protracted
struggle, a verdict for the defendant was
| brought in, announced on Thursday morn
ing. The case will 60 to the supreme court
on exceptions.
The next case taken up was that of
George Adams VS.. Dwight S. Hammond
and Fred C. Hammond The plaintiff
sought to recover a balance of $45 for three
cattle sold in September, 1894, for use in
the market of Hammond Brothers in Spring
field. Fred S. and John N. Hammond had
been in business as partners since May Z,
| 1894. 1t was claimed by plaintiff that
Dwight S. Hammond bought out Johns
interest and became partner from Sep
TENDER l, 1894, and was therefore liable as
partner for whatever supplies were pur-
chased for the market, and that Dwight S.
participated personally in the purchase of
those cattle and helped get them and take
them to the market, afterwards paid $50,
and promised to pay the balance. Fred c..
did not defend, but turned in to help fasten
the liability on Dwight, his cousin (although
Dwight thinks the spelling should be cozen).
Dwight alone defended and his evidence
tended to show that he had some talk about
a trade in August, that he was investigat-
ing its condition and value, and did not
become interested as an owner until Octo-
Der 6, 1894, when he bought the entire
market and had writings made to that
effect and turned in as part payment colt
at 800 as shown by the writing. He ex-
planned the payment of $50 as made on
October 90 at the request of Hammond
Brothers, and for which he was by them
reimbursed and denied any promise to pay
the remaining $45. The case was argued
to the jury by Fred c. Davis and William
E. johnson for the plaintiff and by j. W..
Pierce and Gilbert A. Davis for defendant.
The verdict was sealed up on Friday even
ing and not made public until after the
decision of the next case on Friday after
noon (6th), the case of John X. Chandler
of Weathersfield VS.. Dwight S. Hammond.
This was an action to recover for COW
delivered at the same market September
90, 1894, and involved some but not all the
questions that were raised in the Adams
case. The defendant, Dwight S., however
introduced new and material evidence in
support of his defense, and brought out
other facts more clearly. The testimony
was concluded Monday afternoon and the
case was argued by Fred c. Davis for
plaintiff and by Gilbert A. Davis and j..
W. Pierce for defendant Dwight S., and
the case reached the jury on Tuesday.
The grand jury came into court on Sat
urday morning and reported that they had
concluded their labors and returned 81 bills
found and 8 not found, that the school
moneys had been properly expended, and
that the county jail had been examined and
found in good condition for the safe and
comfortable keeping of prisoners, with a
slight exception in the fact that the outlet
of the drain was obstructed with sand. The
None of the findings have been made pub
| lic Four witnesses who had failed to at
tend before the grand jury Gall from Ando-
\ Vor) were Drought lHJO court anu lnFeSUl-
gated and adjudged guilty Of contempt.
Mr. and Mrs. Thornton and Mr.. Graves
were ordered to pay the costs Of their ar
rests.
Quite lively scene arose as to the case
of Mrs. Hattie A. Graves. She did not
obey the summons to appear before the
grand jury and testify as to the assaults
made on her by her husband. 1t appeared
that she had instigated these complaints
and had had prosecutions made before a
Justice, and had her husband bound over to
appear before the county court. She had
also commenced proceedings for divorce,
Lawyer Fletcher had been her attorney.
When brought before the court to answer
for contempt, she said she was advised by
Lawyer Fletcher on the Saturday before
court not to attend and that Lawyer Stick
ney of Ludlow had power enough in the
court to stop the prosecutions. The states
attorney passed to the court letter writ
ten to him by Lawyer Fletcher stating that
on the last Saturday before court he was
called upon by Mrs. Graves and he found
she was not inclined to obey the subpoena,
and he had advised and urged her to obey.
Lawyer Fletcher was sent for and on Sat
| Irday stated IN tho court fully tho f,c+S n .