Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1905-06-16
COUNTY COURT.
A LARGE VOLUME OF BUSl-
NESS DISPOSED OF.


laSu week WIFI lHe case VI OllHuOli w E
Eastwood VS.. Fred E. Rowley. an action
for trespass, on trial. In the middle of
the afternoon Thursday Judge Bliss for
the plaintiff rested his case and A. w.
Dickens for the defense moved to be
allowed to amend his notice specifica-
tions. This motion was strenuously OPP
posed by Mr.. Bliss, but the Court finally
allowed it to prevail, and a recess was
thereupon taken to 8 o'clock Friday
morning. AT that time Mr.. Dickens had
his amended papers ready and Mr.. Bliss
moved for a continuance of the ground
that the amendment allowed changed
the whole aspect of the case as he had
prepared it and he was thus called upon
to conduct the case in a way which
could not reasonably have been antici-
pated. Judge Bliss stated that in the
event of the denial of his motion he
would withdraw his appearance as
counsel in the case. The motion for
continuance was overruled and Mr.. Bliss
accordingly withdrew the plaintiff get
ting w. II. Davis of Middlebury to take
his place. After a brief consultation
among the reconstructed counsel, the
case was taken away from the jury and
a Judgment ordered for the defendant
that he recover his costs.
A recess was then taken until 2 p. m.
when the case of William N. Farnham
VS.. the town of Shoreham was called
and jury quickly empaneled. A. w.
Dickens appeared for the plaintiff and
w. II. Davis for the defendant town,
Mr.. Dickens to prove his case was COM
PEELED to put on one of the selectmen of
Shoreham, who swore plumply that he
went at the request of the plaintiff, and
in his company, and with another men,
Der of the board of selectmen and viewed
the scene Of alleged destruction. The
plaintiff claimed damages for nine
coarse wool sheep as having been killed
by dogs. The selectmen found seven
carcasses of sheep but decided there and
then that the animals had not been
killed by dogs. After hearing this
testimony the court directed the jury to
return a verdict for the defendant town
to recover costs, as there was no other
course open under the statute. All the
Jurors were then excused until O'Clock
Monday afternoon and at 2:45 the court
suspended operations until o'clock to
hear a divorce case but it was not got
on before supper and an evening session
was held for its consideration, beginning
at 73O.
This case came from Shoreham and
was that of Maude NJ. Burchard VS..
George n. Burchard. These parties were
married in Shoreham in February, 1902
and lived there until last January wher
the wife decided that she could not en-
dure the compansonship any longer and
went to Waterbury as an assistant in the
State hospital for the insane. The grounC
set up for the bill was intolerable severity
and it had been expected that a hard figh
would be put up in the defense but Irt
H. LaFleur of Middlebury who wa
docketed as Mr.. Burchard's attorney, die
not appear in Court and the case wen
almost by default. The case of intoler
able severity was so amply made on
that after hearing only half of the wit.
nesses on hand for the petitioner the bill
was granted and the lady was given tn,
privilege of resuming her maiden name
of Nlaude NJ. Lucas. She was ais,
awarded alimony of $500. to be paiC
within ten days, in addition to the $l7,
temporary alimony granted on the frs
day of the term. The petiOnee had beel
making strong efforts since the begin
ming of the term to get his wife to e,
back and live with him, but she ha,
! found his intolerable severity to be S,
absolutely intolerable that she couldn
stand it and she consequently refused t,
listen to the overtures. James b. Dono
way of Middlebury was the counsel TO
Mrs, Burchard and he had j. Z. Cush
man of Burlington to assist him in cas-
fight was made and assistance wa
required.
This case being disposed of the cour
at s 10 o'clock took recess to 8 o'cloc
Saturday morning.
The cross-bill in the Burchard cas-
was entered discontinued at the openin
of court Saturday morning and tw
other intolerable severity cases wher
then heard. Mr. LaFleur being couns,
for the petitioners in both cases and II
one putting in an appearance for tn
petitioners. The first case was Grac
Murray VS.. Henry d. Murray This III
happy young couple were joined u
gether in matrimony at Ripton in IS!
and lived there and in Middlebury an
at Beldens for practically all the time
4: their married life. According to IL
testimony the husband was an abb
hOdiad drinking man who wouldn't vUO,