The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1898-08-10
Orange County Court.

The June Term was adjourned on Thursday
August 4, having been in session, with two
intermissions, since June Z making thirty-five
days of actual session. Judge Start has done
his work with rare patience and thorough in
dustry and no case has been sacrificed. All
the litigants, including even the convicted re-
spondents, are obliged to acknowledge that
their cases were fairly tried and no respondent
when convicted has dared to file exceptions for
a hearing i'll supreme court
just before adjournment these sentences
were pronounced Amos b. Wright, of Chelsea
for attempt to rape an eight year old girl, six
years in state prison; Alden Aldrich, of New
bury, for assault and battery, six months in
the house of correction, without costs; Charles
B. Hoyt, of Topsham, for selling Intoxicating
liquor, ten second offences, six months in the
house OF correction and a tine of $50 and costs
of prosecutions Eugene llsley, of Thetford,
assault and battery fined $40 and costs Ed
ward r. Corliss, of Newbury indicted for
burglary, whom the Jury found mot guilty
because of insanity was sent to the insane asy
lum at Waterbury. Amos j. Chamberlain, the
other Newbury respondent accused of burglary,
whose trial resulted in the disagreement of the
Jury had his bail set at $500 The two cases
against Homer n. Young of Barre, one for in
toxication. the other for breach of peace at
Tunbridge fair, Sept 30, 1897, were both con-
tinued, the first having consumed six days in
trial and resulted in disagreement of the
jury.
Among witness cases tried by the court was
that of Jim Lee VS.. Charles Selinas, apt, re
sulting in Judgment for plaintiff to recover
of defendant $84.6l. damages, and his costs,
which have been taxed at S36.10. A certified
execution was also granted by the court. Ex-
ceptions were taken and cause passed to the
supreme court. NJ. NJ. Wilson and J. d. Dem
ison for the plaintiff, L. j. Il Z. II. Deavitt
for defendant. Lee is a chinaman living at
Randolph, whose partner in the laundry bust
I bax
ly absconded, Lee had sought to take back
the room furnishings which he had put into
the laundry but was forbidden by Selinas who
claimed back rent to be due. Thence arose
this action in trover to recover the value of the
goods demanded.
Gillette q Heber L. Flint, apis, an action of
assumpst on promssory note for fifteen dol
lars given by defendant Flint, then a minor,
for boot money in horse trade made in April
1891, suit before justice having begun in April
1897. Judgment, Gillette to recover his costs
and for plaintiff to recover of Flint the full
amount of the note with costs, was given, the
court finding that the minor had affirmed his
contract after becoming of age, Just before the
suit begun. N. L. Boyden and J. K. Darling
were attorneys for plaintiff, j. d. Dennison
for the defendants.
Another case was that of A. S. Martyr vs.
|. B. Palmer, an action of assumpsit upon
promissory note for 800 to which the defence
was plea of the statute of limitation. Plain
tiff introduced the inventory made by defend
ant for the Washington listers in 1897, but the
Court held that it did not specify this Martyr
note with sufficient certainty and found for the
defendant to recover his costs. j. w. Gordon
for the plaintiff, r. NJ Harvey for the defend
ant.
The following divorces were granted; Min
ME E. Burroughs VS.. Charles S. Burroughs, for
wilful desertion; Sarah Eddy Fayette
Eddy, for neglect and refusal to support; Min
ME A. Wadleigh VS.. Frank W. Wadleigh, for
intolerable severty-care and custody of minor
children decreed to petitioner; Bell l.. KIM
ball vs. Lloyd W. Kimball for intolerable
severity-care and custody of minor children de-
creed to petitioner; James A. Cook VS.. Eliza
beth ii. Cook, for wilful desertion Edna S.
Fairbanks VS.. Willis Fairbanks, for intolerable
severity and neglect and refusal to support;
Clifton Heard vs. Edna M. Heard, for wilful
desertion; Anna S. Osborne vs.. John Osborne,
for intolerable severity; Lizzie o Scott vs.W. "A
Scott, for intolerable severity, with leave to pc
titioner to resume maiden name; Dora j. Luce
vs.. Hiram ID. Luce, for neglect and refusal to
support. In two cases which were partially
heard the court declined to proceed unless the
petitionee was called into court to answer con-
corning his side of the case, which announce
ment caused one petition to .be withdrawn
and the other to be continued till next
term. The following were continued: Mabel
ID. Brown VS.. Fred A. Brown; Ellen M. Stew
ems VS.. Evans n Stevens; Clara Nj. Foster
Asa j. Foster Effie l. Wallace William
Il. Wallace; Julius Goodell VS.. Lizzie Goodell;
Minnie M. button VS.. Carroll II. Dutton; Katie
Swan vs.. Edgar W. Swan; Mabel Ricketts, VS..
Chas. j. Ricketts, John Clark vs.. Alma Clark;
Geo. s. Staples VS.. Anna Staples; Jennie l..
Gilmore VS.. VIM. II. Gilmore; Lena Baker vs.
Isaac Baker.