Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1905-01-05
Windsor County Court.
December Term 1904

The result of the Balch- WheIden ease
was the recovery by the plaintiff on a oood
substantial verdict 5000. As was stated
last week, the case was one to recover
damages Tor what the plaintiff claimed
was malicious prosecution. When court
re-conVened this week, after the short
Chrlstmas recess, the plaintiff Mr.. RaIeb
OF Ludlow, told his story. lie had for
several years past been engaged in the
purchase, cutting and shipping OF snruce
TIMBER TO make pulp for paper manufac-
turers. In this business Whelden had
been backing Balch financially. Tbere
came time IN 1901 when Balch, believing
ne could thereafter get along without
such help5 and being DESTROYS sof saving
The percentage and commission going ~
Whelden Tor the use OF his money. told
the latter Of s-Balch's-intentlon to %
II alone. Mhelden urged him 10 continue
as they had been doing. but Balch insisted
on going il alone. Thereupon, as Baicb
testlhed, Mr.. Whelden said, Il shall sue
you ana tie you all up and that win ruin
you" Very soon thereafter this sniff in
assumpsit, with damages set at q, 200, was
begun, and attachments were put an
Balch's property. A little later an action
o. account was commenced BY Whelden.
aud Balch was still further tied mn In
this last suit, Whelden claimed IS 600. al
leging unsettled partnership accounts.
As was stated, Auditor Jonathan Ross
found that there was no partnership and
the action OF account was found in favor
OF Balch. All matters between the two
were tried in the assumpsit action, and
Judge Ross found Whelden was ia fact
owing Balch some s26.
As soon as the case was finally deter
mined in county court, Balch brought the
present suit, claiming 5000 for malicious
prosecution. lie had lost much time, had
lost Jobs lost timber, etc, by reason OF
the two suits brought by Whelden. and
the attachments hereunder. In the de-
fence OF the suits his attorneys bills had
been over 1000.
The defendant testified that all the OBJ
lect be had in bringing the suits was 10
obtain a settlement OF their mutual ac-
counts that he had been trying to get
settlement for six months. He denied the
with Balch and threatening
him as be testified. Defendant denied any
malicious intent, and insisted he had
'ause for bringing his suits. The feature
n the whole trial WAS the mastery cross
OF defendant by W. B. {.
'tickney. He unlocked the secret roper
cries OF the hidden thoughts Of the de-
endant and laid them bare TO the jury.
In about an hour after the jury went out
hey came 10 with a verdict for plaintiff,
The case will probably go to the SUI
RENE court, as il is doubtful II defendant
ives up such a chunk until the last effort
9 avoid SO doing is made. He is a
lumber-and Il goes without saying ne is
man who has considerable ''tin.n
AT the close OF this case the trial OF
riminal causes was renewed. The first
State vs.. Fred Corey. This was a prose-
alton on an information charging
'spondent with obtaining money under z
Use pretenses. Sometime in June last +
ORGY was tried before Justice Horace
ease at White River junction for a
reach OF the peace. Corey was convicted 9
I'd his fine and costs came TO about s25. C
e had no money to pay his fine, and n
omaine spaiord the officer, came TO !,
IS assistance and Corey gave Spafford
chattal mortgage on Singer sewing Z
achine, which later Mr.. Spafford took 4
HE office az the Junction. Spafford :,
ought he was protected, and assured the !,
stice i would be o. k, so respondent '
INT his way. Soon afterwards the Il
niger Machine Co. came aud took away n
e machine, which had been sold con-
tionally, or "leasedn 10 respondents 9
Re. The machine was TO remain the
operty of the company until paid for
airs. Corey, who had only paid half Z
Q purchase price when respondent
rned II out 10 Spafford as stated. The Y
ipondent's counsel, Messrs. Il. X. Buck
q l.. T.. Sherwin, raised the point that
, state had not made out such case
would warrant any verdict OF guilty OF
act as charged. Spaiford had testified
It he did not let respondent have the
lney, but had done what was equiva- n
t-had stood in for the amount. ii
The court held that on the charge i,
inst respondent, il must appear that y
had really obtained money, which did "
seem TO be the case. So a verdict OF N
guilty was ordered. s
tate vs.. Mike Vital. assault with %
ent TO XIII Clarence Woodward, and ca
te vs.. Adelbert Ayers, grand larceny, 10
h convicted at this term, were sem he
ced, the former 10 seven-eight years; :.
latter to three-four years in states az
son. As
tN