Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1896-07-02
Windsor County Court,
r,.,,e Tera,a. 1905.

uHe -4,oL 4I4y AZ OOs
The case OF VIM. H. Smithv John Par.
;urv II was said when the Jury last re-
norted and was discharged from the case,
The humber stood Ave for the plaintiff and
seven for the defendant, though at sub
SEGMENT stage the division was six and six.
The case will come up for trial at the De-
cembe term unless it is compromised be-
fore that time. which is hardly likely. 1t
mas been suggested that next term mo-
zion will be made for trial by struck ju-
nv, under the statute. Mrs. Smith, In the
meantime, has resumed work for the de.
fendapt's father as bookkeeper. etc.
Henry N. Jenne v. Sam'l Fl. Piper. This
hold. in which the plaintiff claimed the
defendant was guilty Of technical tres
pass In passing over the plaintiffs land.
The parties live at P, dctorsville and occu-
py houses adjacent to each other. JENNIE
sold Piper lot upon which the latter built
him home. It was OF course necessary
for Piper to have way OF getting to and
from his building from and to the high
way. This he could not do without CROSS
ing land wherein the plaintiff had his
garden. This the plaintiff fOi babe him to
do and indicated another route That might
be used by the defendant. The defendant
ClHIHlcu LuNL Qe Odu Dttu klNeu IlRUb W
cross at the place used, by the defendant,
Jenue. The only question In the case for
the Jury to determine was whether the de-
PENDANT had such right to cross the plain
tiff's land. 1t was claimed by the plaintiff
be had never given such right, bat that
he had said the town would pro badly opsn
a street to the lot occupied by the defend
ant. The defendant introduced several
witnesses to the point that tradesmen and
others with teams, having business at ri.
psr's, took this same way TO and from the
house. Testimony was also put ia to show
that the plaintiff had intimated to others
his Intentions OF giving rig t Of way to
the defendant where the latter claimed 1t
to have been given. This statement
was owned by the plaintifr though it was
conceded the defendant was entitled to a
right OF way somewhere to the road. A
verdict was returned for defendant to re-
cover his costs. Sanford Emery and Ed.
ward Finn for plaintiff; j. Gary Sargent
and F. c. SOUTH gate for defendant.
State vs.. Alfred Carpenter was taken up
as short case to fill out the week, but the
testimony turned out to be OF more length
than was supposed and the case was not
concluded when recess was taken, 1t
was resumed on Monday when the court
charged the jury in the case and after one
hours absence ) verdict OF anot guilty"
was returned. The cna-se against the re-
spondent was he larceny ri thirty dol
lars from the POSSESSION OF Father Therein
OF Windsor. IL was not claimed by the
state that there had been any actual taxi
ing OF the money by the respondent, but
that the money having been lost by the
priest right near his residence, was then
picked 10 BY the carpenter. That he had
the money In bis possession was not de
MED, and he spent it freely while it lasted.
The only question in the case was wheth
err the respondent kner. or had reason Ia
believe, the money belonged to Father
Therien. The money YES mart az the nrice