Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1897-09-25
Wlndham County court.
WETHERELL RAPE CASE.

The jury in the Wetherell rape case rem
dered verdict of guilty at s o'clock Tues
day evening. After the case was given to
the jury in the afternoon the respondent
was Immediately placed on trial on the in
dctment charging him with adultery with
Nettie nj. Carter. Mrs Carter is the
mother Of Mabel M. Walker, thu
victim in the rape case, both of whom
had lived more or less in Wetherells fam
lily. The testimony of mother and daugh-
ter was supplemented by some 40 or more
letters received by them and purpo, ting to
ave been written by different parties but
all bearing striking similarity to speci-
mems OF Wetherell's writing put into
the case by the state for comparison and
admitted by him to be genuine. A portion
OF the letters purported to have been writ
Item by Madame Somebody, who posed as a
fortune teller. TLey were simple and
harmless in commencement but gradually
opened up the idea that Wetherell was
good man who would Go nothing wrong
and that any ri quest that he might maxi
SIlOulu DC COulDICu Win, ObuCENl u UNIIl-
BILE results would follow. Thus was brough,
about state of things in his own home,
with the apparent knowledge and consent
of his family, which it is difficult to mag
inc as possible to exist under the civiliza
ton of which we boast. The respondent
was ably defended by JIG Martin and O T
Butterfield under the claim that the letters
were not written by him and that both letters
and testimony were. the conception of Mrs
Carter in an effort to be revenge for a
fancied wrong. States Attorney Robb is
entitled to much credit for the thorough
manner in which he prepared and conduct
ed the cases for the state. The verdicts Ct
the jury meet with general approval.
JENNIE HOWARD VS.. E. G. BARTLETT.
| On Wednesday afternoon, succeeding
the Wetherell cases, jury was cal d in
case Jennie Howard vs. E. G. Bartlett.
This was an action of replevin. The
parties lived in Guilford and occupied adj
joining farms. In October, 1896, plaintiff
received notice that her cattle were in de-
PENDANTS moving, and at once started after
them with her hired man. She did not get
the cattle, as she says, because defendant
would not let her have them without paying
damages, and would not tell her how much
damage he wanted. The next day SHE
went again armed with written demand
furnished by her attorney and accompanied
by half dozen men. She was met by de-
fendant with pitchfork, who said he did
not know where the cattle we're and or
dered the whole party off the premises
under penalty of instant death. The next
day she sent Sheriff Gordon with writ OF
replevin, who found the cattle in the en-.
closed pasture Of defendant and took
them, regardless of being forbidden &c
do so by the defendants daughter, who
was then holding the fort The defendant's
claim was to the effect that he had never
refused to surrender the cattle and only
put them into his pasture to prevent then
doing damage to his crops, portion o
which they had already destroyed. HI
also entered general denial to plaintiff
story of the case.
Verdict for plaintiff to have possession
Of the cattle and recover damages in thu
sum of one cent. Waterman, Martin {
Hit for plaintiff, Fits for defendant.
DOVER VS.. II A. WINCHESTER EFT AIS.
The case now on is that of the town o
Dover VS. H. H. Winchester and Charles
E. Haynes.
1t is an action to recover sum of $6s
paid by the town on account of damage
sheep alleged to have been caused by de.
PENDANTS dogs. The case will last the re.
mainder of the week, more than 80 wit
nesses having been summoned on both
sides.
1t is said that Judge Ross wishes to be
away over Sunday and that court will not
be in session on Saturday and Monday.