Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1899-09-20
Windham County Court.

The case of Sylvester and Flora S. Raw
son VS.. Daniel Sherman, A. A. Coleman,
E. M. Butler, F. A. Ballard and Clarence
Torrey, which was the last case reported
in our previous issue, was committed to the
jury after the arguments by counsel and the
charge of the court at 10. 40 Saturday morn
ing. AT 2 o'clock in the afternoon the Jury
came in fer further instructions by the
court. At 2.45 P. NJ. the jury again came
in and notified the court that it was impos-
sible for them to agree upon verdict and
they were discharged.
In the William F. Gould will, the pro-
ponent, Benjamin F. Gould, a son of the
deceased, presented an instrument IN writ
ing purporting to be the last will and tesla
ment OF VIM. F. Gould late OF Townshend,
deceased. The will was dated 1880 and
made provisions for his wife aud all his
children, and naming Benjamin F. Gould
as residuary legatee. The will was duly
established by the testimony of the attest
ing witnesses and the prepayment rested the
case.
The court did direct the verdict and in
doing so made the following statement
"Atter such examination of the questions
raised in this case as have been able to
make. | am inclined as regards my own
views of the matter to direct verdict for
the proponent, but as the case is made up,
the rights of the parties would be better
saved by directing verdict the other way
and therefore pro lorna verdict may be
directed for the contestants" Haskins
and Schwenk for the prepayment, Water
man and Fits for the contestants.
Mosely VS. Mcclure, an action of reple-
win, brought to recover one COW which,
as the evidence OF the plaintiff tended to
show, WAS bought at the auction sale of
Charles S. Wilkins at Guilford. 1t was
shown that the COW in question, as all the
property advertised and sold at said auc-
ton, was covered by mortgage from Will
kins to Warren G. Doolittle.
The contestants introduced evidence to
establish the due execution of later will
dated in February or March, 1896, and
evidence showing the contents of said will
and also OF destruction of said will by the
testator. In rebuttal the contestant testi- |
led as to declarations made by the testator !
prior and subsequent to the destruction of |
said later will, showing his intentions to
nave the former kept and the provisions
hereof carried out. 1t was commended by
he counsel that there was no question of
act to be found by the jury, that it was
merely question of law whether the max
ng and executing of the subsequent will
destroyed the former and asked that a YER
lict be directed for the prepayment.
The defendants evidence tended to
how that the mortgage in question was
detective, in that the description of the
tote intended to be secured by said mort
,age was indefuite, and further that thew
lad commenced to proceed, according to
he statute, in the sale of the attached
property by giving notice to the MORTGAGE
o render statement of the amount due
m bis mortgage and the property therein
to secure his claim, but were
topped from carrying out their intentions
" the action of replevin, which was
rought prior to the expiration of the time
flowed by law to make such demand.
he court instructed the jury to render
verdict for the defendant. Waterman
nd Msrtin for the plaintiff and Fits for
be defendant.
The case which stands for trial by jury
the one of Tucker VS.. Howard for
breach of warranty and is now in progress
I trial.