St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1899-06-14
COUNTY COURT.


Last week Wednesday trial was begun
in the case OF Jennie Simpson VS.. B. 0.
Davis, The cause of action was breach
of promise to marry and the damages
claimed thereby $2500. The attorneys
were B. E. Billiard and Alex Dunnett for
the plaintiff, ]. P. Lamson, Elisha May
and X. w. Simonds.
Mrs. Simpson is widow of the late
Oscar Simpson of St. Johnsbury, who
died seven years ago last winter. She
has a son aged 81 and daughter 10.
Her maiden name was Jennie Colburn
and her fathers name Luther Colburn OF
Barton. the home farm being near West
Glover. The defendant is a widower OF
SO and he has a son about "a. He is the
proprietor OF general store at Green's
boro Bend.
From the evidence it appears that Mrs.
Simpson entered upon the duties OF
housekeeper for Mr.. Davis in June, 1895,
continuing in that capacity tor about
three years.
The plaintiffs evidence was in sub
stance as follows: Very soon after she
began working for him Mr.. Davis began
TO show affection for her,-n fact the
next day after her arrival he asked for
kiss as a reward for bringing in wood
for her-and he got it. They rode out
together, walked together, attended
various religious gatherings together.
He had habit when walking or sitting
beside her, both in company and alone,
of keeping one arm around her waist
and holding one of her hands in his. The
latter part of the summer as they wendell
their way homeward from a drive the en-
gagemcnt of marriage was consummated.
Various witnesses testified to evidences
of affection manifested by the "lovers"
especially the plaintiffs sister, Mrs. Her
| man Prescott of Barton who said that
while visiting at her home Mrs. Simpson
sat in the defendants lap frequently
: pressed her hand to his lips and bathed
j, his head when it ached.
n He agreed to marry her, the plaintiff
!
come of age. That time passed. The
: bridal was still delayed. Nearly three
t wears had passed. The defendants heart
# had grown cold. He at last refused to
ever marry her. She left MIR. DAVIS
abode in Indignation and proceeded at
d once to institute breach OF promise
r suit.
The defendant looked upon the events
of those three years in a different light,
so different, in fact, that he denied
E. about all the plaintiff affirmed. lie
IS never agreed to marry her, never thought
1. of it, never wanted to. He didn't re
:, member of kissing her in the presence o
W any of the witnesses, but as the side
walks are pretty narrow in Greensboro
ne che NAV have had hold Of her hand, or
-, the way to church." She worked TO-
y him for $1.25 a week, although sh
nc claimed to have previously got 81 Of
lg ana $500. She seemed to be trying t.
capture man and when she found tina
a. he wasn't inclined to submit to capture
she was after many other men, notabl
w one, Elkins, photographer, with whor
'h- she was especially intimate and spen
he considerable time in his studio.
The case was vigorously conducted o
both sides and argued with ability, e.
'in pecialy by Messrs. Lamson and Dunnet
The The Jury took the case for conslderf
err ton Friday morning at 11.3O. We
on dict was returned Saturday mornin
upon the opening OF court at ocloc
re' for the plaintiff to recover OF the deel
lsh dant sos damages and costs.
WIS Friday afternoon a jury was empanele
nd and trial begun in the case OF Maj
WV Provost V. Edison N. Randall. Ale
at Dunnett is attorney for plaintiff; ii.
lille Howe, Elisha May and X. w. Simon'
appear for defendant.
FOR The grand jury made its final repo
Friday afternoon, one bill was foun
OH one not found, one mot found by reast
S in of the insanity of the respondent. I
Ass iail was reported in good condition.
400 Three divorce cases were heard la
'''' week and bills granted as follow
eek Helen L. Kiey V. 7. Henry Killey, W
ged ful desertion. parties formerly resided
nor Lyndon; Mary ]. Sylvester, v. Hendrl
The Sylvester, adultery, custody OF mn,
: child, Roy to petitioner, parties resio
Is in Ryegate; Katie A. Eldridge. V. LoV
con- !. Eldridge, non support, parties reslo
to in st. .Johnsbury.
4, oil The case Oh MuIy lVNost NS' -
'NN' Randall is an action i'll trover to reco'
the value of certain goods taken by
'air- defendant from the house OF the plant
w. October / 2 and Is, 1897.
% The plaintiffs name was Miss n
Namara before her marriage and fol
enry number of years she was in the emp
$. X. of Mr.. Randall in his dry and fai
are goods store on Railroad street. She
80 had charge of branch store on M
"' street for a time while in MIR. Randa
employ. According to the plaintiffs
timony Mr. Randall came to her no
on the 10th of October and accused
&c of having in her possession goods ste
.,o.a from his store while she was working
ue's him. He started to search the hot
e the Mrs. Provost expressed her willingl
pien. 70 have him search, il he thought she
most ANYTHING that belonged to him, but
all sired to go for her husband. Mr.. X
eV'l dali objected and told her that the nc
ac- was surrounded by officers and he
alum but to wave his hand to have her ARE:
sold and put in jail She then submitted
the search and allowed him to J
eon' everywhere he wished to but did
lie IN give him permission to take anyth
rites lie went through the house .oope'
,ress drawers, boxes and trunks, hlling
use pockets and bundling together &c
which he claimed ana notwithstan
C as her remonstrance carried them away