Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1905-01-19
Windsor County Court.
December Term, 1904.

|
Court adjourned without date at moor
on Saturday after session of six weeks
during which a great deal of business has
been disposed OF and one of the largest
verdicts of recent years obtained, namely
the 5000 in Israel Balch VS.. Benz. r
| Whelden. A motion was made to sci
aside the verdict ON the ground that it was
excessive in amount. The court refused
the motion and directed judgment entered
With a certified, elose-iail execution.
There are some exceptions in the case and
1t may go to the supreme court. The exc
cution is stayed, pending this question.
Most of the court business transacted
| has been the hearing of divorce causes.
The following were heard and decided as
/ indicated -
Effie Holland VS.. Harry n. Holland.
| The petitioner resides at Stockbridge.
| The causes alleged were intolerable sever
| ity and adultery The defendant resides
at Brattleboro with a Mrs. Katherine
| Chamberlin. They had lived together in
| Massachusetts as husband and wife and
/ her husband secured a divorce on the
ground of that adultery. When the petit
tioner demonstrated with her husband for
his conduct, he struck her with his fist.
| Wallace w. Batchelder for petitioner.
| Bill granted for adultery.
1 Wallace l.. Martell VS.. Bertha Martell.
The parties were married in 1897 and lived
at Rochester Bertha left her husband a
few years ago and went to cohabit with
one Whittemore. She was indicted for
adultery in Addison county in 1902 and
pleaded guilty. Bill granted for adultery.
j. b. Donoway for petitioner.
Emma Z. Cloud VS.. j. Herbert Cloud.
The parties live at Union village, Norwich,
and were married in November, 1888. The
petitioner sought divorce from bed and
board, alleging intolerable severity and
adultery. She charged her husband with
improper intimacy with a young woman
named Emma Colburn. This was denied
by the defendant and Miss Colburn.
Both averred there was nothing more than
friendly relation between them. Mr..
Cloud made a countercharge of undue ia
miliarity on the part OF his wife with one
Jackman and also with the husband of her
sister. Mrs. Cloud on her part denied the
truth OF these charges. The case was
stoutly contested and a large number OF
witnesses were examined on the above re-
spective charges. j. G. Enright and r. X.
Buck appeared for Mrs. Cloud: William
Batchelder for the defendant. Bill grant
ed on the ground OF adultery.
Clara A. Carlisle vs.. Allen f.. Carlisle
The parties were married in 1879 at Plym-
outh and lived there until seven or eight
years ago, when they moved to Ludlow.
Mrs. Carlisle charged her husband with
frequent acts OF cruelty, mainly because
she would not submit TO him at his pleas
ure. She also charged refusal to properly
support. These charges were denied by
the husband, who claimed that the domes-
tic infelicity arose from her improper in
timacy with one Ernest Martin. AT the
last June term Carlisle recovered damages
against Martin on an action for alienation
OF Mrs. Carlisle's affections. John @. Sar-
gent and II. l.. Skeels for Mrs. Carlisle;
Sanford 4. Emery and G. A. Davis for de-
PENDANT. Bill granted on the ground OF
intolera BILE severity.
Fannie NJ. Pratt VS.. Willis n. Pratt. The |
parties were married in 1887 and lived in |
various places in Vermont and Massachu
sets until three years ago, since which I
petitioner has lived at North Springfield, 4
and has received no support from defend 1
ant. Herbert fl. Blanchard for petitioner. I
Ella NJ. Warren vs.. Collins p. Warren. 4
The crime alleged was intolerable severity. /
The parties were married in October. 1901, /
at Chester. The evidence was strongly I
supportive OF the charge alleged. L. 4. 4
Sherwin for petitioner. Bill granted for /
intolerable severity.
Florence NJ. Furman VS.. Burton l.. Fur
man. Petitioner lives az Bridgewater and /
was married in 1893. In 1895, defendant
deserted his wife; bill granted on that l
ground. A. q. Cox for petitioner.
Charles II. Cock vs.. Charles Caldwell was
q snort case to recover damages for shoot
ing two dogs of the plaintiff Defendant
the shooting, but claimed II was
done in defending his own dog from a
Joint attack by the dogs OF the plaintiff.
Moreover, defendant insisted the dogs
we're without collars, which plaintiff de-
MED. Skeels for plaintiff; L. 4. Sher-
win for defendant, j. {. Enright assist
ng.
Frank X. Tatro VS.. Veda Tatro. The
parties were married in 1892 In Decem Der.
10 1901, defendant deserted her husband
Ind would not return, though urged By
aim so to do. The petitioner lives at Ply
mouth. A. II. Humphreys for petitioner.
Eva l.. Doyle vs.. Frank j. Doyle. The
,arties lived at Windsor, where the petit
proved was intolerable severity, and a bill
vas granted for that cause. 5. T.. Pingree
or petitioner.