Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1899-09-15
wINDHAM COUNTY COURT.
Divorces Granted and Several True
BIDs Of Indictment Found by the
Grand Jury.


BIDs of Indictment Found by the
Grand Jury.
On Friday and Saturday OF last week. there be.
ing no jury business before the court the follow.
ing cases were heard and divorces granted for the
causes named, viz: Alice G. Smith from Russell
T. Smith for wilful neg ect to support; Wilbur
F. Knapp from Jennie r. Knapp, and Lena NJ
Marble from Ernest E. Marble for wilful deser-
ton; Annie s. Dewey from Addison J. Dewey,
and Edgar j. Tuthil from Jennie A. Tuthill for
al lutery.
Monday afternoon when court met there was
no case ready for trial. so after the petit Jurors
had been called and sworn and instructed rs to
their duties, the court took recess to Tuesday
morning, when the court got down to work.
Emma HoiCe opt George B. Stanley Es
tate. This appeal from = decree ofthe pro
bate court affirming the decision Of the commits
sioners Of claim. disailoWing a claim against the
estate presented by the plaintiff The plaintiff is
daughter OF the intestate and wife Of c.
Howe Of Dover. The plaintiffs evidence tended
TO show that at different times in 1885, 1885, and
1855 she worked for her father in Halifax doing
housework; that she loaned him money on two
or three occasions; that 10 1891 she let him have
a sewing machine and clock. also that she had
furnished him board at her home siuce her mar
riage to Howe, and that in October, 1895 she
again boarded him for five weeks; that he had
made her some few small pay ments which she
had passed TO his credit on her account The bal
ance the plain III claimed as her and for which
she sought to recover amounted to something
like S215
THE defendant denied all liability and also
pleaded the statute OF limit lions and bis eyi.
dence tended to show that there was nothing due
her FOR services or money loaned prior to 1896
when on the first day of AUGUST OF that year a
guardian was appointed for the intestate, no
died in ls.S. That In conversation had with
the guardian, after his appointment. she only
claimed her father was owing her for the sewing
machine and clock delivered in 1891, amounting
to a little over $40. and SIS for board in October
1896. and also introduced evidence tending 10
show that the statute OF limitations had run upon
p aintin entire account accrung prior 20 the APP
pointment OF the guardian. Verdict for the de-
PENDANT.
Fits for the plaintiff Martin for the defend.
ant
The grand jury reported that they had found
ten true bills OF Indictment IS follows: Three
against Albert Baybrook for burglary aud lar.
ceny; one against Jerry Downey alias j, Try
Downs for larceny 1.-TWO against Frank w Pratt
for larceny and concealing stolen property: one
against Arthur Greene for larceny; one against
Lewis Q. Harris for assault with intent TO kill;
one against Leo ForRette for violation Of fish
laws, and one against Sidney D. Townsend for
bigamy.
Sylvester aud Flora s. Rauson Is. Daniel
Shertcin. 4. o, Coleman, E. NJ Butler, FTed
A. Ballard and Clarence A. TOrreE.-This was
an action of trespas on the freehold Plea not
guilty and notice OF special matter in defence
The plaintiffs are husband aud Wife the latter
being the owner OF the land on which the alleged
trespass was committed, and the first named oc.
cupying and carrying on the same. The three
first named defendants were the selectmen OF the
evidence
the part OF the plaintiffs tended TO show thar
on the goth day Of August, 1888. the two last
named defendants Ballard and Torrey, entered
upon plaintiffs land, removed his fence cut
down trees, and from that time forward for sew
eral weeks constructed a road or highway through
IN IT land Tor about GO 70 s. That it Was pas
In which son g 40 sheep and 20 or more lambs
were being pastured That on several occasions
while said road was being constructed these sheen
aud lambs escaped from the pasture Al the nIscs
where the fence had been removed and strayed
into plaintiffs orchard where they destroyed
quantity of cider apples.
That plaintiffs were never notified by the Sc
iectmen that they had laid out highway through
their lands That the selectmen had beer on and
made an examination for a highway and that
the plaintiff husband had consented that a road
might be laid out In a certain ocality across sail
lands. providing the town would build for them
good barbed wire fence, and they could sell the
Ian 5 between said proposed highway and the
brook 10 one Il. 5. Wilder, who wanted to buy
That the highway was not constructed upon the
route that they had talked about with the select
men, but an entirely different one That the
plaintiffs were never notified OF the layin9 out Of
the highway, never Afforded a hearing ON the
question OF land damages,and no money for such
damages was ever rendered lhem IL appe red
that Ballard and Torrey were the Contractors
with the selectmen who built the road That
plaintiffs forbid Ballard and Torrey trespassing
upon their lands, but they continued tn II work
on the highway until compile ed, both through
plaintiff : lands. and IT. extension through lands
OF e. S.Wilder. The evidences of the plaintlff hus.
band and other witnesses called bV plaintiffs
placed the damages from $50 TO RS5.
The evidence on the part of the defendants
tended 10 show that sometime in the month of
OF July, 1928. the selectmeR made an examination
OF said premises to sre II a highway could be con
structed az reas nable cost and thereby get rid
OF rebuilding and supporting a bridge on an old
highway, and that subsequently, they went on a
second time giving notice to The plaintiffs to an.
pear before them on the premises, which the
plaintiff husband did do, acting for himself and
wife. That they went over the route of the con.
templated road, the plaintiff husband accom-.
panying them; that It wa all talked over and
agreed that highway should be laid out estab-
llshed and built where 1t subse quently was CON
structed; that it would be great accommoda.
ton 70 tie plaintiffs, aud It agreed that they
would not claim any damages of the town II the
road was built where they did build it, and that
the town might enter at once upon said lanes
ena proce+ a with It's construction. That on the
29th day OF August they decided TO lay out, and
DID lay out aud establish sal highway, and i'm
Inediatey let out the job of building il to Ballard
and Torrey, although an actual survey was NOT
made until September 49, aud the report of the
seleclmen filed for record about Oct. TIL At the
road was built by said Ballard and Torrey pur.
suant 70 their said contract with the town. That
Inc pialnuhs' damages, If any, would mot
exceed So. But as the selectmen Understood n
was agreed with plaintiffs that they waived ali
damages the selectmen never awarded or ten
dered any money damages. Verdict-- Fits