The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1897-06-18
Orange County Court.
Iune Term. 189z.

SNSAAbI SOoAIS
June Term. 1897.
Hon. L. Il. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge
Hon Hon " y NJ " hEBBEf' FITsIs Asst Judges.
CURTIS S. EMERY, Clerk.
CHAs. F. SMITH, Sheriff.
HALE X. DARLING, States Atty
MARGARET CHESTNUT, Reporter
). X. BERRY, High Bailiff.
SATURDAY, JUNE -.
No. 40. State V. John Hartwell, in
diCtment for breach of the peace filed
June Term 1894, and at the same term re-
SpOndent as principal and George Jenkins
as surety recognized to the state in the
sum of $500. At the Dec Term, 1896, the
respondent not appearing the bonds were
called for and forfeited. At this term
that entry was permitted to be stricken
off to permit the bail to move to CHANGER
the bonds Such motion was made but
the court not being satisfied that any ear
nest effort had been made to bring the re-
SpOndent into court only Chancered the
bonds to $50. This stirred up the bail to
further effort to bring Hartwell into
court. The authority of the bail over the
party who is bailed is not very generally
understood, but Mr.. jenkins, by his agent
the sheriff, took the respondent HartWell
from New Hampshire into Vermont and
produced him in court and counsel made a
new motion to chancer the bonds and
they We're cut down from $50 to S25.
without costs. Paid June 18th. Pickett
withdraws as attorney for respondent.
The respondent pleads guilty to a breach
of the peace and is sentenced to pay a
fine of 800 and S34.22 costs. Paid June
18th.
No. 776. Charles D. Cook V. George
Jenkins, scirefdcinS Heard June Sd on
motion to dismiss because writ made re-
turnable in June and because not ~ days
from date of writ to sitting of court Mo-
ton Overruled. Today dune 12) defend
ant surrenders Hartwell into court here.
Watson for plaintiff, Pickett for defend
ant, limited Harvey.
MONDAY, JUNE IA.
No. 100. State V. Ward B. Sly and
John Ordway mot John Hood as printed
last week being tried for burglary came
to an unexpected end by the respondents
and pleading guilty" H. X. Darling for
state, Harvey for respondent.
No. 794. State V. Sly and Ordway is an
Indictment against the same parties for
burglary. In this they withdraw their
plea of mot guilty and pleaded guilty
Same counsel as 100.
No. sol. State V. Carroll p. Glass and
Harry P. Burke burglary of Does store
in Bradford village. The respondents
plead guilty and are sentenced to state
prison for two years each. IL. Is. Dar-
ling for the state, Watson for defendant.
No. 500. State V. Nelson j. Hood. In
dictment, for an assault upon his wife,
which was disclosed by the trial of the
divorce case. Respondent pleads guilty.
II X. Darling for state, Stow for respond
ent.
No. SO4. State V. James Goodrich.
Pleads guilty of burglary. Sentenced
to house of correction for three months.
TUESDAY, JUNE 10.
No. 7Sg State v Sly. The respondent
is sentenced to the state prison for three
years.
No 100. State V. Sly and Ordway. Sly
is sentenced to state prison for three
years to commence to run from the eXpi-
ration of the sentence in No. 7S9. Ord
way is sentenced to two years in state
prison.
No. 794. State V. Ordway. The re-
spondent is sentenced to two years in
state prison to commence to run from
the expiration of the sentence in 100.
No. 500. State V. Hood. The respond
ent is sentenced to the house of cOrrec-
ton for one year.
No S14. State V. Francis A. Eaton. In
dictment for breach of game laws-tish-
ing in posted waters Trial begins today.
WEDNESDAY. JUNE 16.
No S14. This case occupied the fore,
asked the court to direct the jury to re-
turn verdict of acquittal on the ground
that the state had not made out case,
but principally for the reason that a pOr-
tiOn of the statute law on which the pros
ecution relied was unconstitutional |
Col. Watson for the respondent, after
dinner argued the question at length !
The states attorney, Hale X. Darling, re-
piled. The court after very full state |
ment of the question, and the law, and |
finally decided that Section 1867 of the |
Vermont statutes is unconstitutional, |
and a verdict of mot guilty" was return !
ed by the jury. If this decision is sus- |
tanned it will make quite a hole in the |
Fish law, States attorney and j. X. Dar-
ling for prosecution, DeniSOn and Watson |
for the defense.
No. AL. State V. Eugene Illsley was |
the next case called up. This was pros |
cutiOn for the illegal manufacture of |
liquor. The respondent had been fast to |
go to trial and claimed that he could |
prove himself innocent, but when he saw |
John Senter the L. ). District Attorney |
come into court his courage failed and he |
pleaded guilty" John had assisted in |
smashing too many illicit stills in the |
county and knew too much to be detied |
as witness. Illsley was fined 500 and |
costs. The States Attorney being dis |
qualified to try the case ID. e. Hyde was |
appointed special states attorney to |
prosecute.
No. SOB. State V. Joseph Harmel. This |
was an indictment for rape in Williams |
town upon a girl of eight years. The |
testimony of the complainant occupied |
the day. From the experts and other |