Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1904-12-22
Windsor County Court.
December Term. 1904.

the declaration OF the plaintini y Mohid pe
necessary 10 take testimony IN 1alliofhis'
The plaintiff was represented by John y.
i Wilson and w. b. z. stiekneyi deienaahI
By Tarbell a Whitman, assisted by oiioert
The next case for trial was that of Allen
r. Carlisle vs.. Ernest Martin. This was
an action to recover the value OF certain
horse. buggy wagon, sleigh, harness, ETC.,
/ IN the possession OF the defendant, claimed
III be owned by the plaintiff. In the sum
mer Of 1903 the property in question was
j in the possession OF plaintiff and his VIE.
/ AT that time the relations between Aar-
I isle and his wife were not pleasant on ae-
count. as claimed BY Carlisle, Of the IN
trusion Of Martin into the domestic iellei-
+ ~ OF the Carlisles. In some way the
property go. into the possession OF Martin;
i by some arrangement between him and
Mrs, Carlisle-a pretended sale, as plain
tin claimed to dispossess him OF the
property. At the last term OF this COURT
/ Martin wss defendant IN an action OF
: Grim. con. in which the plaintiff Carlisle
] recovered verdict. The facts leading up
I to the obtaining OF the possession OF the
property bv the defendant were shown,
f but 10 cross examination of the plaintiff,
/ 1t appeared that the wagon and sleigh did
not belong to him, but were purchased by
I his Wife The value OF the horse had been
shown 10 be about $50. The case was an
original case m the county court the
statute fixes the minimum amount in
yolved in such a case az 200. So when
/ the plaintiff rested his case, John g. sar-
/ gent, counsel for defendant, promptly
raised the question Of want Of jurisdiction
in the court, and moved for a verdict.
4 Judge Watson directed the jury to return
a verdict for the defendant to recover his
costs.
There being no other civil cause ready
/ for trial, the court enquired OF the states
attorney, Charles Batehelder, II he had any
criminal cases ready for trial, and Mr..
Attorney, who has the State business
excellently well in hand, replied that he
could have case ready for the afternoon
session. So Wednesday afternoon the
trial Of criminal cases commenced and
continued throughout the rest OF the
week, as follows;
State vs.. James Dumas. This respond
ent, professor OF the tonsorial art, To-
Gated in the hirsute locality OF Proctors-
vile, was charged with a violation OF the
license law. Some OF the inhabitants of
that respectable locality, suspecting that
James was dispensing other kinds Of
rum than the innocent bay, caused a
search to be made Of his shop and the cell
lar beneath 1t. John Sheehan, town grand
went with Deputy sheriff Shedd, and made
the search. In the chimney was an open
ing left 20 clean II out when foul. This
was investigated and six bottles Of liquor,
which Shedd and Sheehan swore 10 be
"whiskey,n were found. There was no
evidence that this liquor was intoxicating,
but later developments established the
fact that IT had that quality. Respondent
did not deny the possession OF liquor, but
fruR II In n tsrf, 4 To-
private use, and later be demonstrated
that some Of this particular liquor evi-
IDENTIFY was for that purpose. The jury
concluded that probably James had il
there for himself and said. mot guilty.
j. G. Enright aud L. r. Buck defended
Il is surmised the liquor was returned to
James, for the next day two cases Of in
toxicatlon came up IN court, viz, State vs.
James Dumas, and state rs. John sheehan.
Both pleaded guilty, and were fined IS
and costs, amounting to si3.
State VS.. Willard Smith and Adelbert
Ayers. An information filed at this term
by the states attorney charged the re-
spondents jointly with having broken into
summer cottage ct Lake Rescue in the
town OF Ludlow and stealing therefrom
six pairs Of blankets, two mems sweaters,
a rain coat, certain tools and other articles.
he cottage vas the property of d. X. Sar-
A.
John Bradley, and the goods taken out OF
It was some Of il owned in common, and
other articles belonged to the individuals
named. The respondents asked for sep
arate trial and 1t was accorded them The
case Of Smith was first taken up and he
was defended BY j. G. Enright and +. r. |
Buck. The sargents and Miss Anne
Bradley identified the property, which
was IN court, and testified to making
n hEa fNFNft uaN all a.
discovering it had been broken into. The
sargents kept quiet and kept their ewes
open, and month or two after the break |
ing IN was found out. Winfield Sargent
saw his red sweater on the back OF the re-
spondent Ayers, who worked at the Estev
speeder mill at Tyson. A search warrant |
was obtained and search was made Of the
residence OF Ayers, whose family consisted |
OF VIE ana two children, and the re- |
spondent Smith as a boarder, The rain
coat ana blankets were found packed |
away at the house, except one pair thar /
was on the bed OF the respondent Smith. 1
an alarm clock, taken from the Sargent Il
cottage was also found in Smiths room
ne also gave up a sweater that he had hid
den IN the barn, claiming II was given to
MN by Ayers. This was the defence IN /
omlth, and II ayailed him sufficiently to
reauee the verdict to one for petit larceny,
the case, the jury returned. The other
] urymen, who had been carefully excluded
during the trial Of Smith, were then
Drought INTO court and a panel was called
TO try Ayers. The evidence was gone over
again, as IN the Smith case. Ayers en-
oeaYored 70 explain the possession Of the
property BY saying he had purchased il
al al q young man named O'Donald. who
lIyed somewhere near Reading pond. III II
v nom the respondent said he paid fonr
uollaFs ior ali the stuff, not suspecting il
any way that it had not been come 10
honestly. Ayers said, in answer to oues.
llon OF Mr. Attorney, he did moi Enovv
y mere y .Donaid was, and had made M ~
lorts TO md him. The jury found Ayers
gullty OF grand larceny, and he was re-
llanded for sentence. He was defended
by Sanford L. Emery.
On saturday, the respondent Smith
laNlng waived his exceptions. anDeara5
Ior sentence and was given the maTimnn,
p three months Imprisonment in ths
mouse 81 correction, the minimum ssne
enee being 50 days. 'eh-
ne state attorney had another case an
ready, but Il was SO near Saturday noo,,
ne case was put of until Monday at 81
state vs.. Chin Sawyer of the plvp,o,,b
wilderness was taken IN Monday 80