The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1903-03-26
COUNTY COURT.
Case Of Considerable Local
Interest Now on Trial.


last week went to the jury on Thurs
day morning and in the afternoon
verdict of 5000. 16 damages for the
plaintiff was returned. The case
will go to the Supreme Court.
The next case taken up was State v.
Fred Dickinson for larceny. The re-
spondent lived at Essex Junction and
was arrested on the charge of stealing
buffalo robe from j. G. Hobart OF
Moretown last December. Dickinson
was arrested about three months ago
and at a hearing before the Montpe.
lier city court was bound over to the
grand jury term in December. Rather
than remain in Jail all summer he
asked the States attorney to file an
information against him in county
court. The States witnesses included
several from Middlesex. The case
went to the jury on Friday afternoon
and during that evening verdict of
mot guilty. was returned. Dickinson
was released and later in The evening
Sheriff Graves was called up by tele
phone by sheriff in Littleton, New
Hampshire, and asked to hold the
prisoner on a charge of stealing chick
ems in that State. Dickinson had
disappeared, however, and has not been
seen since.
Little business was transacted on
Saturday and court was adjourned,
until Monday at 2 O'Clock; No case
was ready at that time. Announcement
was made that the case of Patrick
Murray V. MARI d Gordon cannot be
tried in its order as the plaintiff had
broken his leg
On Tuesday the case of Fisk v.
Gale was taken up and came to sud-
den halt because the leading lawyer
for the plaintiff had brought the case
to court in an unprepared state.
This suit is for damages of So, 600
growing out of the shooting of the
plaintiffs Charles J. Fiske) son, in
Stowe, by the defendant, George W.
Gale. 1t will be remembered that in
July, 1901, Philip Fisk, aged eleven
years, was shot and killed while in
swimming, by George w. Gale then
a boy sixteen years of age. Gale was
arrested and pleaded guilty to the
charge of pointing and d1scharging a
dangerous weapon. He was sentenced
and placed on probation. The present
suit is to recover damages.
Several witnesses were examined for
the plaintiff and the testimony showed
lack of preparation on the part of E.
M. Palmer the leading attorney for
the plaintiff, and his associate lawyers
asked for continuance. Judge
Stafford granted this but awarded the
sum of $50 to the defendant for the de-
lay caused and stated that this must
, be paid before the close of the term or
Judgment would be rendered for the
defendant. The court also said that
he considered the counsel guilty of
gross negligence.
The case now on trial is of unusual
Importance and is given more in de-
tail.
The case docketed as In Re. Almira
) f.. Cowdrey's will was taken up for
trial Wednesday in county court
|, and jury empanelled after over an
, hour of questioning and challenging.
, This case is quite we'll known to PEG.
, pie in and about Montpelier from the
, fact that several of the parties inter
, ested live in Montpelier and the case,
, involving several interesting ques-
tions, has been tried once before, re-
sulting that time in disagreement.
| The main facts surrounding the case
are as follows: Mrs. Almira E. Cow
, drey, the testatrix, was an old lady
who for several years was charge at
the poor farm in this city. While
there, four or five years ago. she had
the good fortune to become heiress to
several thousand dollars by the death
of relative, Chandler w. Paul. She
at once left the city farm, residing
afterwards in Montpelier, but not with
rQlatiuoc Che AiaI ri
ago leaving a will with requests to
the following persons: William A.
Holmes, Montpelier, $500 and cham
Der suit; Deborah M. Holmes, Montpe-
lier, 5000; Laura, wife of Henry Carr,
Montpelier, $500; Henry O. Holmes.
Montpelier. $500; Mary, wife of Will
liam Hornbrook, the woman with
whom she lived after receiving the
money. 500; George Wheeler. Mont
pelie-. all the rest. residue, and re-
mainder of her estate.
This residuary bequest proved to
amount to something like &c. 600. the
residuary legatee being the overseer
of the poor who had general charge of
| the inmates of the poor house while
Mrs. Cow drey was there. Mr.. Wheel
r or was also named as executor of the
will. The will was presented in
| probate court and allowed, an appeal
being taken to county court by the
> heirs of Mrs. Cowdrey.
) The heirs contend, in their attempt
J to secure the defeat of the will, that
t the document was improperly execut
ed and witnessed, that the will was
made by Mrs Cowdrey as the result
OF undue influence by Mr.. Wheeler,
that the testatrix was of unsound
+ mind, and that, being under guardian
ship, she had not the power to dispose
+ of her property by will;
Mr. Wheeler, soon after the money
fell to Mrs. Cowdrey, was appointed
her guardian by the probate court and
the will was made while she was un-
10 l..