Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1904-06-24
Add SON County Court.

Taking tie stand in his own behalf.
the respondent admitted having sold
lap robe to Martin, but claimed that it
was one which he bought from one
Charles j. 1olcomb. This Holcomn was
convicted at the last December term of
court of grand larceny, committed by
stealing some half a dozen horse blankets
from Charles LaBoeuf of Nergennes in
that city in the fall of 1901, and he is
now dong time at Windsor by way of
penance. Terrill was an important wit
ness against Holcomb in that trial and
some of his relatives. including his wife
and her sister. who were witnesses in
this case. testified in a way which went
to show that they were pleased with the
chance to get back at Terrill The evil
dence for both sides had all been got in
when court took a recess over night
The arguments in the case We're made
"Wednesday forenoon, States Attorney
Donoway, speaking 20 minutes III his
opening for the prosecution and laying
considerable stress on the fact that the
respondent had admitted on the witness
stand that he had formerly pleaded
guilty to a charge of petit larceny. He
also stated that considering the nature
of the testimony as to the value of the
stolen property the state would ask for a
verdict of guilty of petit larceny only,
Mr.. Davis argued for the defence for
nearly an hour and Mr.. Donoway closed
his side of the case in a - minute plea.
The charge of Judge MunsOn to the jury
took up about half on hour and they got
the case shortly after | | clock
They came back into court at H. 30
o'clock with a verdict of mot guilty. ="
Terrill was forthwith discharged from
custody after having been confined in
the Addison county Jail since the prelm-
mary hearing at Vergennes in March
last, under bail which he was unable to
procure.
While the jury in the above case We're
out, the case Of State vs.. William Durfey
was under consideration. The respond
ent has been in Jail for some weeks on a
charge involving adultery, it being
claimed that at the time of his arrest
Durfey was found living in Vermont
with woman not his wife within three
years of the date when his wife was
granted divorce from him. For good
and sufficient reasons shown the Court
ordered that the case be entered mol
pro-sed and Duriey was discharged. Mr..
Davis was his counsel.
The case of State VS.. Charles Ash of
Monkton was begun Wednesday after
noon, Mr., Donoway prosecuting and Mr..
Davis once more appearing for the
defence. The charge in this case was
adultery and the alleged pqrticepS criminis
is Mrs. Matilda Cohair, wife of Lewis
Cohair of Monkton: and it is claimed
that Ash and Mrs. Cohair were living
together as man and wife at Monkton
when they were arrested in April last
The parties Were bound over at that
time and being unable to obtain bail
have been in Jail here ever since. The
woman has three daughters: Maud, aged
10, Mabel, II, and Claribel, about ten
months. She separated from her hus
band about two years ago and the testi
mony tends TO show that she has beer
pretty thick" with the respondent il
the interval. She will have "A separate
trial, but probably not at the present
term. The testimony in the case agains
Ash had not all been got in at the noor
recess, Thursday.
The outlook now is that the term will
last through the greater part of mex
week and the next jury case will prob
ably be State VS.. Ralph Douglas of Eas
Middlebury, charged with larceny.