Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1898-01-13
County Court.

q
in the rendition on Friday afternoon last
of verdict for the plaintiff for the sum OF
81 900 damages and costs.
This was the third time the case had
been in the county court; the first trial
was IN June, 1896, which resulted in
disagreement at the last May term the
case again came on for trial and progressed
as far as The first week, wheE through the
misc 1nduct OF a jurymsn, who talked
ABOUT the merits OF the case while the
case Was on trial, the jurors were dis
missed aud the case continued. Then the
present trial was had before the iuIymen
whose names have been given an pre-
vious issue.
The features of the case were about as
follows: In September, 1894, William III.
Smith, the plaintiff, was at work Tor Il. Ill.
Bagley, the plumber and steam hitter OF
White River Junction. The defendant,
aPark, as he is known, was foreman
under his father and had charge OF the
latters business in certain departments.
In the month above named Smith married
a young girl named Jennie Beecher, who
resided at Randolph, and the two went 10
live at White River Junction, boarding at
the St. George hotel. MIR. Bagley, as
friend OF Smith-the friend-was by
Smith introduced to his wife. In Novem-
Der Of that year Mrs. Smith, wanting to
employ her time, talked With her hus.
Office; it was agreed to and Mrs. Smith
taken into the office as cashier, book
keeper and typewr ter. Mr.. Smith was OF
necessity frequently away from home, at
work on contracts taken by Mr.. Bagley,
ST. In February, 1895, Smith was at work
at Bellows Falls and during that month,
while on short stay at the Junction
was informed by Bagley that Mrs.
Cummings, wife OF Cummings, The
printer had on a certain Sunday after
noon in February called at Mrs. Smiths
room, and that he, Bagley, was there and
had his coat off, and that in consequence
of that MIS-. Cummings bad ceased 10 be
friendly with Mrs Smith. On hearing this
Smith went to see Mrs. Cummings and
had talk with her. Theresult was a Wis
it to Park BagieyJ and an assertion by
Smith, based upon what be claimed Mrs.
Cummings told him, to Bagley, that the
latter depii d, and said they would go and
see Mrs Cummings together, which they
did. bo,stestimDny differed good deal
in regard to this Cummings incident, but
there was enough in it so that Smith
charged Bagley With improper conduct,
and the latter angrily arose, and Smith,
with an oath, was about to strike him
when Mrs. Smith interposed and the scene
closed subsequently Park talked with
Smith and allayed his suspicious entirely
and Smith went to work again, but In a
towards him and separation was dis
cussed. Mr.Smith became persuaded that
his wife did not love him and agreed to |
leave the Junction, letting his wife re-
main there and keep her position. After |
Remaining at Bellows Falls through |
March, Smith went to Randolph, where
his wife was staying, for days visit. He
had ia k with his wife and the next day |
re. efysd a letter from BagIey, in which |
theilatter accused Smith of talking behind
-Bagley's-back. Smiths old suspi-
cion was at once aroused because this only |
one he had talked to was Mrs. Smith, who
had that day returned to the junction.
Smith thereupon went to the Junction to
watch the situation. On the Saturday
evening OF that week he saw Bagley go up
the entry way leading from the street to
where Mrs. Smiths room was, then cur
tain was seen to 60 down and Smith /
waited on tine street until Pagley appeared
and accused him OF wrong-doing, striking I
him a severe blow IN the face with his
clenched fist. Smith was arrested and /
paid his fine. Then soon thereafter, the
present suit was instituted. The forego- |
ing constituted mainly the case OF the
The allegation OF the plaintiff
was also sought to De sustained by the de
position of William Snow and the testi-
mony of Luman Simonds, who had been
day clerk and night clerk, spectively, at
there. These two Witnesses testimony |
tended 10 show that Bagley had been
frequent visitor at Smiths rooms when
Mrs. smith was there alone and on GER
tain occasions the hour OF his going to and
coming from the room was late at night
and in the early morning h ours. l. was
argued by the plaintiffs counsel that 1t
was very evident Smith had lost his wife
and Bagley had got her.
The defence was a general denial. Mr..
Ragley, in the Cummings matter, called
Mrs. Cummings to testify that there was
nothing improper seen by her, except that
Bagley sat in the room with his coat off; I
Bagley exclaimed in regard to his condi ]
tion that it was very hot in Mrs. smiths
room, caused by having too large radia-
tor, la which the steam could not be shut
off. He urged thai bis having his coat off
was Dol hing more ttan be had done when
MIR Smnh was there. IL was true, said
Bagley, that during Febr' airy be had hau
to be IA AIRS. Smiths d ms two evenings
a week, working at making out the in
vtnLOry, in " hicn no one but lie could al
fix to articles their cost price. The store
closed Two evenings each week and he had
asked Sm N whether he would rather have
his wi e work in the office or at his room,
and that smith had suggested that he
would rather have the work done Ia his
room. The defendant introduced several
Witnesses to impeach the witnesses Snow
ana .imOnds, by showing that each had
on several occasions told stories different
To tneIr testimony on the stand; and the
wit ess slmonds had stated that he never
ha seea anything. The defendaDkalso
CT I'm tine story fStmonds> was uIfifse~f
l, and prepostenous. IL was also shown
by several commercial men that at about
the tiInz ln question they hsd been guests
at az motel, and that frequently Park
Bagtey would call on them aud spend the
evening IN Heir rooms, and that il ne was
Seen Z .miag down the ho,el stairs on any /
occ4sio L Was when be was leaving from
sucn caus The defendant also placed
great Romance on the letters of the plain
lff, aud his statements made orally to
otn rs at be had no fault to find with
bis wif !, tnat it was his fault ana that he
never blamed Park" who Lad on all &C.
casi "a s.O 4 himself his friend ANA had
made y c. oetween him and bis wife.
Ii was MT denied thal something had |
ccufres - separate and put asunoer :
>mltn ana mis- wife. The defendant {
clsim-a rms vas smiths own misconduct I
wnisr ne a, al Bellows Falls. Several (
vi deponents told stories as to