Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1902-06-12
Orange County Court.
June Term, 1902.

two set to the court, three continued anc
five said to be for trial, the latter being
! ''Harvey w. Bishop V. Haley E. Richard
son & Trs., :" on the first days assignment
postponed one week; ''Clara Waters V. j
II. Galpin,n Erred G. Frappiea V. Nelson
s. Johnson" "Marion L. Burnham V. Bet
sy Carpenter and "Hattie E. Banister v
4 Marion l.. Burnham.H Tuesday after
noon, the grand and petit juries were
called and charged by Judge Rowell re-
garding their duties in his usual fine,
mastery fashion. Court then adjourned
until Wednesday morning, there being no
case ready for trial.
The first case tried was the case of Clara
| Waters v. j. III. Galpin, Wilson and Har-
vey appearing for the plaintiff, and Boy
! den of Randolph for the defendant. This
was case of trespass, the plaintiff claim
ing an assault upon her by the defendant
in taking away from her money which she
| had IN her possession as the result of a
horse trade between her husband and the
defendant. The testimony of the plain
tiff tended to show that on the occasion Of
the assault, Galpin being out of his wagon,
and standing near her wagon, on the side
nearest her, asked to see the money, the
ten dollar bill, which he had given her
husband that same day to bind the horse
trade between them; that he said the rea
son why he wanted to see it was because
took out the money at the request of her
husband; and that thereupon the defend
ant seized hold of her thumb or some por-
ton of her hand and snatched the money
from her, causing her great fright and in
ducing nervous exhaustion, from which
she suffered for days and weeks, she being
week and feeble woman.
The testimony Of the defendant tended
to show that the story told by the plain
tiff was not true. He claimed that after
he got out of his wagon and stood between
the wheels Of the plaintiffs wagon, be told
her husband that he wanted that money;
that Mr.. Waters asked hin why he wanted
IL, and that he replied "You know very
well why ] want that money! that Wa
ters then told his wife to give the money
to the defendant, but that before she had
time to pass it to him, Waters said "Giye
il to me-; that the wife then passed the
bill to her husband, and that the husband
had it in his hand and, as it seemed to the
defendant, was about to pass it over to
him, but when in the act of doing so, said
"Who has been telling you anything about
this horse ~ and that at that time he be-
gan TO draw his hand back as though not
intending to let the defen dant have the
money; that when he saw the money being
withdrawn, he snatched the bill with both
hands, and twitched it away from the
man, bat that he never touched the wo-
man unless in trying to get the bill across
her lap, he may have brushed her. The
defendant claimed that the reason why he
wanted the money returned was because
he had heard something about the horse,
for which he had traded, which caused
him 10 believe that the husband of the
plaintiff had misrepresented things.
The court charged the jury that if the
defendant did grab the plaintiff by the
hand, as she testified, and she was not
H. sFl 1. \
not defeat her right of recovery, because
the defendant had no right to grab her by
the hand, and that for every violation of a
right, the law implies some damages, in
such case usually nominal damages, SO
that il she was neither hurt nor discomtit-
ted nor put in fear, the mere unlawful
taking hold of her in the manner her tes-
timony tended to show, would be a viola
tion of her right of personal security as
against the defendants touch, and would
make him guilty of an assault and battery.
The jury brought in a verdict for the
plaintiff to recover sl29 compensatory
damages and costs. A motion has been
filed by the defendant to have the verdict
set aside on the ground that it is excess
sive in the light of all the testimony and
the circumstances in the case. The de-
PENDANT took no exceptions during the
trial, so il the motion to set aside the YER
dict fails, the case ends here.
Thursday morning, the criminal case OF
State V. o. F. Slack of North Tunbridge
was taken up. This was a complaint |
the respondent with an infrac- I
tion of the law governing the sale of pro- |
vision for food or drink, the statute saying 1
that a person who knowingly sells dis /
eased, corrupted or unwholesome provis- /
ions for food or drink shall be punished. 1
The respondent was charged with selling 4
diseased beef to a firm of butchers in |
Washington, knowing it to be such. The 1
evidence of the State tended to show that I
the respondent had been doctoring this i
COW for two days before il was Killed, and |
that he killed it fearing il he kept it |
longer in the condition in which IL was il I
would be unfit for sale
The State showed by Mr.. Luce OF Chel-
sea that Mr.. Slack attempted to sell the
beef to him at his place Of business, but
that Luce refused to purchase because
from the appearance OF the beef, he
thought il was fevered, although he did
not tell Slack so, but made some other
excuse for not buying IL. The evidence
of the respondent tended to show that he
did not think the meat was fevered or
unfit for use, that he useo portions Of Ii
IN his own family, and that the man 10
whom he sold in Washington, although
he examined the beef, saw nothing about
is appearance that caused him to think
TO whom he retailed it made no
that came to his knowledge.
The Court charged that the jury, in order
o convict the respondent, must find two
the meat was diseased and
hat the respondent knew it when he dis
posed OF IL. A verdict Of "not guilty" was
State v. Henry Manning was disposed
II in less than two hours, the respondent
,eing charged with drunkenness. The
violence of the State tended to show that
he respondent drank two glasses of hard
ider in the presence Of the two witnesses {
Produced by the State, that he was abusive
nd profane, and that as one of the men
oppressed it, ale didn't know nothing
nd you couldn't make him know moth
ng, but this telling description evidently
allied to impress the jury and the re-
pendent was acquitted.
Il was expected that the assault and
artery case of Marion Burnham and
Ietsey Carpenter would be tried Friday
fternoon, and the court room was packed
n anticipation thereof, many elderly
entlemen being conspicuous. Counsel
sked for an hours delay, 10 commune
nth themselves and clients, and at D. m. 7
nnOunced that the case was settled. {
he same statement WAS made rpGnaoffray