Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1903-06-12
COUNTY COURT.


state VS.. sherman L dltdW, lHloiHid-
ton for furnishing liquor. In this case
States Attorney Donoway said that he
could have nothing to do with it and
nothing to say about it as it figured in
disbarment proceedings against himself.
1t appearing that the case was some
what stale, that there was only one
witness against the respondent and that
that witness was in the state of New
York and that without the jurisdiction
of the court, the Judges took the control
of the matter into their own hands and
ordered the case mol pressed. In the
cases of State VS.. William Hope and
Edward Train for furnishing continuance
was entered and the nuisance case
State VS. John Higgins was mol pressed
on the recommendation of the state
attorney. State VS.. Marcus Carr, an
Indictment for grand larceny, the re-
spondent in which has been in charge
of the superintendent of the Vermont
hospital for the insane at Waterbury for
observation as to his sanity since the
last December term, was passed until
report should be received from the
physicians at Waterbury. State VS..
| Curtis O. Smith an Indictment for rape,
in which trial was had with a resulting
disagreement of the jury at the last
December term, was mol pressed. Mr..
Donoway thinking the chances for Sc
curing a conviction rather slim. State
vs.. Edward Barton, on information for
adultery, was set for trial at 9 o'clock
! Tuesday morning, with but little pros
pect of the respondents appearance in
court at that time to confront jury.
| This closed out the cases on the criminal
docket.
On the court calendar, the cases of
Frank l.. Fish, receiver Of the Farmers
| National bank of Nergennes, ". Edison
! Is. Palmer and trustees; the same vs..
Emerson Hollands administrators and
same vs.. f. c. Kennedy and trustee, all
of which had been marked doubtful
on the opening day of the term, We're
all entered continued, and the case Of
the Farmers National bank vs.. David
Duquette was discontinued with costs
on the plaintiff. The divorce of Maud
! Dushow vs.. Charles Duehow and the
case of John Kenworthv vs.. George
Farr, appellant. on the Jury list, was en-
tered settled and discontinued.
On the chancery docket a decree for
the orators was directed in the fore
closure case of J. VI. SHADES administra-
tor ct AL VS.. Cyrus E. Burge. with one
YEARS. redemption. w. II. Davis of
! Middleburv for the orators. In the fore
closure case of Adelia +. Hammond vs..
Mary E. Blanchard ct al, Mr.. Davis
again for orator and f. w. Thomas of
Nliddlebury for all the defendants eX-
cept Virgil w. Blanchard, a decree was
granted to the orator with one year to
redeem to the defendants, and f. W.
Thomas was appointed guardian od Heo,
of the two minor defendants
These cases on the general docket We're
continued: E. II. Leonard VS. Newton j
Wilcox and trustees; Antoine Gregore
vs.. Eugene Leonard, Anna \. Smith vs..
Orvis X. Smith, divorce: 5. w. Gregory
vs.. Orlando Beebe, appellants American
Iron q Steele Co. VS.. Sam Silver 1T al,
appellants; RoXana Whitney. VS.. James
2. Whitney, divorce; Fred Nutall VS.. B.
w. Crane. appellant: Walter w. Brown
VS.. Patrick Hill; Lyman c. Peters VS..
riage; and Joanna y. Dow VS.. Albert F.
Spencer. These cases We're marked dis.
continued: E. H, Bailey vs.. E. d.
Thompson, appellant, and trustee. and
John j. White vs. II. G. Ward. In
Lewis Eubar, guardian, KS. Joseph
Odette, appellant, the plaintiff was non
suited
After the above entries had been made
ON the various dockets the first divorce
case of the term was heard. 1t wa
Mildred II. Campbell IS. Jesse II. Camp
bell. and the grounds alleged We're in.
toIerahe severity and refusal to support
These parties We're married in Bridpori
on March 20, 1900. the bride being q
daughter Of Mr.. and Mrs. Asa Hemen
way of that town. now of MddleburY
The young couple came to Middlebury tC
live, the groom being native of thi,
town and musician and composer OF
ability. Later they resi- led in Worces
ter. Mass. and afterward in New York
According to the petitioners story Jess'
wasn't much of a provider while they
lived in New York but a good deal of
drinker and he got into the way OF
pawning his wife'S ieWelry and silver
ware in order to raise money with whicl
to buy drinks. Incidently. he occasion
ally pounded Mrs. Campbell and CAV,
her black eyes At one time during
their residence in New York. Mrs
Campbell testified she was three whole
days without a mouthful Of food. willis
: Jesse was out on the 'bum." Finally
things, including her health, became ST
bad that she was for time an inmat,
of a charitable institution in the metro
polls. Her parents went to New NOrl
in October. 1901, rescued her from thu
institution and took her with them t
Washington, where her child, a cut,
little girl, was born ON November : o
that year, Jesse wrote to her frequently
imploring her to return to him anC
. promising to do better. In Decembe
, She did 20 back to live with him il
New York, but was able to stand tn,
life only until the following April, wher
she came to Middlebury with her child
ana here She has since made her home
maintaining herself and child by giving
lessons in music and receiving assistance
from her parents but nothing from hel
husband. The divorce was granted
, right off the reel for intolerable severity
, and Mrs Campbell was awarded tn,
care and custody of the child, Helena
Mr.. Lafleur appeared for the petitioner
and no defence was offered. As Their,
was no other case ready to be brough
ON, the court at 4:l0 o'clock took "A re
cess until o'clock Tuesday morning.
Tuesday was the busiest day of thu
e term and a large amount of work wa