Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1898-09-19

O0C. II, says GnaC 1f DAVIS VIII com e
back he will fix up the store to suit
him, and let him have the use of the
store and $4,000 in money, without
rent Or interest, until the rent and in
terest shall amount to $1,000, but if
that did not suit him he would give
| him $4,000 and let him have it along as
needed. Defendants letter of Dec. Is
written partly by defendant and part
ly by his wife does not acknowledge
the receipt ofNelson's letter of Dec.12
just referred to, but apparently dis
cusses it's contents.
At this stage of the charge there is
another general rule which may prop
erly be given you in view of the sug
gestion that was made by counsel for
the defendant, and that is,-that there
is presumption Of innocence, pre-
sumption of honesty and fair dealing
which enters into the consideration Of
all matters where it is claimed that
man has forged a book or forged
writing and made false account or
anything of that nature. In view of
the suggestion tits proper for US to
indicate this matter to you although
as the case stands, it does not occur
to me that it will be of much practi-
cal effect in the determination of the
case; but at the same time, it may
well enough be in your minds because
it applies to piece of evidence ad-
vanced upon each side of the case,
and one side is entitled to the benefit
of the rule as much as the other.
The plaintiffs claim that in a former
trial the defendant put himself upon
the ground Of an arrangement COM
pleted while he was in the West, and
that this throws suspicion upon the
justice and the honesty of the claim
which he is presenting at this trial.
Well, Of course, you have heard the
discussion that has been made here,
and you will remember the different
parts of the record of the former trial
that have been introduced from which
the defendant claims that this is not,
in fact, the case. tits for you to con-
slider that and find out whether there
is any change here in regard to this
matter. Of course, it is true that if
the defendant or his counsel, actipg
for him, knowingly and understand
ingly placed his claim upon a certain
ground in n former trial, and has since
abandoned that ground and place it
upon ground which is inconsistent
with that. it would have an important
bearing upon the case. How much,
is entirely for you to say; it will be
important for you to consider. But,
it is claimed on the part of the defen-
dant that the manner in which these
negotiations went on and the nature
of the transaction was such that it
cannot fairly be said, in view of what
has appeared here, that they stood
upon the ground that the arrange
ment was completed at the West, but
that propositions We're made that
they were to consider, that sugges-
tions were returned in regard to
them, and finally Mr.. Davis came
East; and they say, that even if upon
further development of the case, it
is found that the actual conclusion of
the contract in fact was made in the
East, it is not putting them upon an
in consistent ground, even if they ap-
pretended that more was done by way
of completing the contract in the
West before the time of this trial.
That is one thing for you to consider
in connection with it all.
Take the claims which have been
made here by counsel from both sides,
the record that has been pres ented as
substan tiating the different claims,
the record being claimed to support
the claims of the plaintiffs on one
side and the defendants on the other,
and then say how, in your Judgment,
this matter stands, and then say, in
view of this, what weight should be
given it. Of course, the argument on
the part of the plaintiffs is that if the
defendant once stood upon a contract
made in the West, and afterwards,
upon a further development of the
case, stands upon a contract made in
the East, he is standing upon incon-
sistent ground and that should lead
you to suspect the honesty of his later
claim; but, / have already indicated
to you the claim which counsel on the
part Of the defendant make in regard
to that. In the first place claiming
that it is not true upon fair consid-
GRAFTON Of what has been read here
that he did put himself on just the
ground that the plaintiffs claim he
did, but that if he did, the situation
was such in regard to the manner in
which these negotiations went on,
and the nature of the arrangement
that was finally to be made, that even
if it was not actually concluded until
his return to the East, he should not
be prejudiced by this fact in the way