Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1901-12-26
Windsor County Court.
December Term, 1901.

December Term, 1901.
The civil case of Josiah G. White vs.
Town of Windham for injuries sustained
on a highway, was ended Tuesday, the
18th. when the jury returned a verdict
giving the plaintiff 5000 damages.
On Wednesday morning the court took
up the case of Luella Mahoney against the
estate of Roswell DOwner, late OF Wealth
ersfeld. There were several items in the
specifications. all of which were conceded
except one for $50 based upon a written
contract. signed by Downer, agreeing to
pay Mrs. Mahoney 200, in addition TO her
wages of a per week, in case she should
outlive Downer and take care of him in
| sickness until he died. Il was claimed ON
the part of the defence that the contract
was a wagering contract and that II
amounted to making a will without the
legal formalities. No question being made
upon the evidence that Mrs. Mahoney did
| survive Mr.. Downer and perform the con-
/ dition of the contract, and neither party
caring to go TO the jury upon any question
OF fact, verdict was ordered for the plain
tiff to recover the 800 with interest from
the date of Roswell Downer's death. The
defendant estate will carry the case to the
Supreme court.
The next case was one brought by the
same plaintiff, Mrs. Luella Mahoney,
against the Springfield Savings bank to re-
cover the amount of deposit, sl,O2S and
/ dividends thereon, standing in the name
of Roswell Downer and transferred to the
said Mrs Mahoney by Downer in his life
| time by a written order. The deposit was
claimed by the administrator of Mr..
Downer's estate, Fred III. Downer, who
| had been cited in by the bank to defend
| the case. II appeared from the evidence
that Mr.. Downer gave the book to Mrs.
Mahoney out of gratitude for her services
during his sickness and for a long period
| before, while she was his housekeeper in
| the hotel at Weathersheld. The plaintiff
claimed that the administrator having been
cited in, the case was really to be tried as
| between her and the estate, so that the on
| ly question would be which was entitled
| to the fund: but the bank raised the tech
meal question that the action could not be
maintained against the bank, because the
bank had never promised to pay Mrs. Ma
honey. This was a defence which was
really put forward by the administrator in
the name of the bank. At the close Of the
evidence, the defendant claimed that ver-
dict should be ordered for the bank, and
the plaintiff that verdict should be or
dercd for her. Neither party claiming TO 60
to the jury upon any question OF fact,
verdict was ordered for the plaintiff and
exceptions taken by the defendant bank,
upon which the case viii goto the supreme
court
Friday morning the court took up the
cases Of Allen Brown against The Mer-
chants Insurance Co. and The Phoenix In
surance Co., which, by agreement Of par
ties, were TO be tried together. The two
policies were on the same building, block
in process Of construction in the village of
Ludlow which was partially destroyed by
fire on the 29th OF Dec, 1900. The COM
panies conceded their liability and the on
| iy question involved is that of damages.
The plaintiff claims to recover for a total
loss and the companies claim that the
building, after the fire, was of considerable
value and might have been repaired so as
| to have made the loss less than total The
plaintiffs evidence was completed and the
defendants case begun when court adj
journed at 2 80 Saturday afternoon. The
trial was resumed Monday morning at
o'clock. The case went to the jury Mon |
day afternoon. Verdict against each |
company for s912.5O and interest.
State V. Nora Murphy for burglary came
next. The respondent is but sixteen years
OF age and has been in Woodstock jail |
since October 18th. She took the stand in
her own behalf. The case went to the |
| jury at 1880 Tuesday morning and re-
suited in an almost immediate verdict Of
acquittal The same respondent was then
arraigned upon an information for lewd
behavior, pleaded guilty and vas sem
LehCbu TO the mouse Oh GUfEtGNtDD. 4 ne
sentence was suspended during good be-
havior and the respondent placed in the
care of the probation officer. Court then
took a recess until Thursday afternoon.
The following indictments were re-
turned by the grand jury
Lena Blanchard, gross lewdness.
l.. H. Aldrich, r. o. King, Albert +.
French, Joseph Cote, Thomas Keefe, II. 5.
Harwood, w. II. Tyson, Jr., j. George, +.
w. Smell, f. r. Frink, A. T. Smell, John
Woodbury., Pearl Dunn, gambling.
Thomas Daley, Oliver Snyde, adultery.
Earle Faneuf, Gerald Faneuf, rape.
John Smith, second intoxication.
Burt Burke, Royal Adams, Andrew
Thorburn, Edwin Smith, Joseph Walsh,
David Sargent, Seymour Sargent, furnish
| ing.
A. S. Loomis, iniuring fruit trees.
| A. 5. Loomis, Ralph Nichols, Oliver
Snyde, John w. Armstrong, Fred Bur-
dett, breach Of the peace.
Ralph Nichols, trespass on orchard.
Adm Allen, act Of 1898 relating to hunt
/ ing dog.
Joseph Walsh, David Gartin, Lewis
| Comstock, burglary.
/ A. G. Martin, receiving stolen goods.
/ Frank Tatro, assault with intent to kill
and murder.
John P. Braley, information, second in
/ tONlCatiOn.
Samuel ID. Wilson, manslaughter.
Edward Mayott and George Mayott,
/ larceny
| In several ofthe state cases, the respond
| ents were brought into court and arraigned
and in nearly every instance pleaded ''not
i guilty" In one or two minor cases pleas
/ of ''guilty' were rendered and accepted
and small fines imposed.
/ The manslaughter case of State vs.. VIII
4 oil nua M 10 Hrrs
on any particular day. William +. john
| son has been assigned to assist the states
attorney and viii have the management OF
the case.
An Evaneelist's Story.