Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1905-06-30
COUNTY COURT.
OF GUILTY IN CASE
OF STATE vs.. HER. n
Respondent VIII Appeal to supreme
Court. Considerable other Business
Transacted.

CeOuluBS ClOSeu ldSJ week WIFI 1hS
verdict of guilty in the Thompson intoxi-
cation case at the opening of the after
noon session on Tuesday.
This case being disposed of another
criminal case was soon got under way.
This was the case of State VS.. Almer,
alias Elmer Her, this respondent was
charged with having in connection with
one Robert Hayes, both of Vergennes,
stolen three-year old heifer from Frank
Callahan Of Bristol on the night of Sep
TENDER Is, 1899 taking the animal from
pasture in New Haven driving her
seven miles to Vergennes, butchering
her by moonlight and selling the meat
next day TO a Nergennes market man.
Hayes was tried at the December 1899
term of court and found guilty and given
sentence of not less than or more
than five years in the States prison at
| Windsor, which he served. He now re-
| appears in court as the principal wit
ness against Her, who has hitherto
succeeded in escaping trial and forfeiting
$1,000 bail by doing so. Mr.. Davis as
sisted the States Attorney in the prose-
cution and Judge Bliss and Ira II. La
Fleur conducted the defense. Hayes
testified to all the details of the crime
acknowledging his own part in it but
claiming that he did not know the
heifer was stolen until three weeks after
the transaction but supposed Heir had
bought her, as he claimed to have done.
Judge Bliss put Hayes through merci
less cross-eXamination and he admitted
that he had committed perjury by
wholesale at his own trial, five years
ago last winter, when he testified that
the deceased heifer was one he had got
from his fathers home place in Goshen
and which had been driven over to YER
gennes by his brother and delivered to
respondent Hier in pursuance of a
previous trade.
| The evidence for the State was COM
pleted at 2:30 Wednesday afternoon and
the testimony for the respondent took
up the time of the court until noon
recess on Thursday, the arguments being
made in the afternoon. HER took the
stand in his own behalf and was on
nearly all of Thursday forenoon. He
swore that the heifer which was
butchered and sold by him, and which
he subsequently learned had been stolen
from Mr.. Callahan, he bought in good
| 60 tl, Dol 10 iui, 20
mich COW and S12 in money that the
heifer was delivered at his place by
Robert Hayes and his brother, William,
and that Robert Hayes had told him
before the trade was completed that he
was to get the heifer from his fathers
place in Goshen. He also stated that
after the preliminary hearing he left the
state and was gone until about year
ago since which time he has been living
in Rutland. and that the reason why he
left the state was because he had learned
that his bondsmen were going to sur
render their bail, that he would be
unable in that case to obtain other bail
and he did not want to lie in Jail several
months awaiting his trial; and he further
testified that the HER family he believed
were intending to put up job to fasten
the crime upon him and claimed that the
elder HER had offered him money if he
would get out of the way so that the
state could not get him to testify against
Robert The respondent set up an alibi
for his defense and put number of
witne sses on the stand to testify that he
was in Vergennes at the time when, ac-
cording to Robert Hayes story, the
heifer must have been stolen.
The testimony in the case was all got
in by $50 Thursday afternoon and the
remainder of the day and half an hour
of Friday morning were occupied with
the arguments. Mr.. Russell opening for
the prosecution, Mr.. LaFleur coming
next for the defense, Judge Bliss follow
ing on that side and Mr. Davis winding
up for the state. Judge Watsons charge
to the jury took up over half an hour
and it was a thorough and impartial ex-
position of the law applicable to the facts
brought out in evidence. The jury were
out one hour and ten minutes, when
they came back into court with verdict
of guilty. Hier and his counsel had eX-
pected nothing worse than a disagree
ment of the jury. Judgment having
been entered on the verdict they took
exceptions and accordingly HER will not
be sentenced until his case has beer
heard by the Supreme court.
State VS.. Grant Allen was the next
case got on and it was started as soon as
the jury in the HER case had gone out
States attorney Russell prosecuted anG
Mr.. LaF'leur defended the prisoner, who
has been under 5000 bail since the last
December term of court. The respondent
was charged with having assaulted hii