Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1899-09-22
COUNTY COURT REPORT.
Several Cases TrIed--Arthur BRybrOolt
Sentenced to Two Years I'm the House
of Correction.

Several Cases Trled--Arthur BRybrOOk
Sentenced to Two Years In the House
of Correction.
In the case of Rdirson and ioife Us. Shericin
ct ais. reported last week, the jury were unable
to agree and we're discharged from its further con-
sideration Saturday afternoon.
A divorce was granted to Mary w. Leet from
Charles Leet for the cause Of adultery.
In re, last 'ciu OF WiHidm f. Gouid.-Ths
was an appeal from tne Decree Of the probate
court for the district of Westminster disaowing
paper writing purporting to BE the last will and
testament Of William F. Could, late of Towns
bend, deceased The contestants pleaded a revo-
cation Of said will.
The evidence on the part Of the prepayment and
appellant, Benjamin F. Gould, tended TO show
that on the 3lst day of August, 1880, the paper
writing 10 controversy was duly executed by the
deceased as and for his last will and testament.
That it was written by Milon Davidson, Esq, and
signed by the testator and witnesses in the man
ner prescribed by Law, and that he was, at the
time, Of sound and disposiug mind and memory.
The principal legatee under the will was his son.
the prepayment. " no was also named as executor
of the same.
The contestants, Mrs. Frances Allen and others,
daughters OF the deceased, were then permitted,
against the objection of the proponent, TO intro
duce evidence tending to show that In May 1896
| the deceased made and executed second will,
| together with the contents thereof according to
the recollection Of the person who wrote II, and
| also that the second was destroyed In April 1898
by burning. The, provisions Of the second will
were nearly identical, far as the living legatees
were concerned, with the earlier WILL except that
| Mrs. Allen received the use Of $4,000 instead of
SiuO0, and W. S. Holland was named as executor
| The prepayment was permitted TO show IN rebut.
tai against the objection OF the contestants, that
he had no knowledge of the first will until some
| two years after 1t bad been executed, when the
testator gave Il into the keeping of the said Ben
| jamin +. Gould, executor and residuary egatee,
| who then lived in the state OF Connecticut and
that be had retained II in his possession until pre-
|
| testator In January 1899. II further appeared
that after the decease Of the testators wife, his
maiden sister, Elizabeth lived with and kept
house for him, and that he proposed to attach TO
| his said will a codici making provision for the
| life support of his sister Elizabeth should she
survive him, but the will being in Connecticut he
| had the will of May 1896 made In which he pro
vidtd for his said sisters support should she sur
vive him. 1t did not appear that the second will
contained any revocatory clauses OF the first
| will That the sister Elizabeth died In March or
| April 1898, and that Benjamin F, Gould was sent
| for to come home with his wife and live with the
| testator which they did do. That the testator IN
quired II the first will was still preserved, and on
| being informed that IL was still in Benjamin's pos
| session, the testator procured the second Will OF
| Mr. Holland, brought Il home and burned II In the
stove. requesting Benjamin to hold the first will as
he had already doue, as be wanted his estate dis
/ tributed in accordance with its provisions.
| The contestants commended that the execution
Of the second will was, in law, a revocation Of
the first will, aud that nothing short OF formal
republication of the first will could give IL life.
| The prepayment contended that, In law, the de-
struLtion OF the second WILL the testator having
possessed the first during all the while, operated
as a revision of the first will without any Tepubli
] cation, and that the evidence showed such to be
| the intention OF the testator, and when such in
tention was shown the court would not declare
that the deceased died intestate, but would carry
! out his intentions. Verdict pro forma for con
testants
In directing the verdict the court said: After
such examination Of the questions raised In their
case, as have been able to make, am inclined,
as regards my own view Of the matter to direct a
verdict for the prepayment, but as the case is made
up the rights OF the parties would perhaps be bet
ter saved by directing a verdict the other way,
and therefore pro lorna, verdict may be di
rected for the contestants"
Haskins s Schwenk for the prepayment. Wa
tarmhn a Marlin and Eiffs for cnnfesfants