Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1905-12-22
CONTINUED from Page l.
COUNTY COURT. y

that Barnard, who did not have a license,
sold him and another man each a drink
of whiskey "when the ground was
frozen" The other man swore just as
point blank that Barnard had never sold
him any liquor. Frank L. Fish and F.
w. futile of Vergennes appeared for the
defense and Mr.. Russell conducted the
prosecution. The case was finished in
the middle of the forenoon Friday and
the jury after a brief absence came in
with a verdict of not guilty. There is
another case on the docket against the
same respondent charging a similar
OffenGe.
1t was thought best not to start another
criminal case SO late in the week as the
jury in the case would have to be held
together over Sunday, SO at a little before
II o'clock on Friday "A recess was taken
to Monday afternoon at , o'clock.
Upon the reconvening of the court
Monday afternoon the third criminal
trial of the term was begun and it be-
came apparent that the term was to last
several days longer at least. This case
was State VS.. Melvin Ayers Of Leicester,
who was charged with an assault with
intent to kill, alleged to have been COM
mltted against Ormon Paltlow of Leices-
ter in that town on March II last. The
respondent has been at large under $500
bail since June 10. The circumstances
of the case are briefly these: Partlow
was driving along behind Ayers ON the
day in question, the respondent having
on a considerable load including some
new furniture. The sleighing was poor
and Partlow wanted to pass. The two
men had been at loggerheads for five
years, nevertheless, when they got to a
convenient place Ayers pulled out to let
the other pass. Here the alleged fracas
occurred and each charged the other
with beginning the trouble and using
some highly unparliamentaTy language.
Finally, Partlow claims, Ayers threw
two sled stakes at him, one of them
knocking off his hat. The respondent
swore that he threw only one stake and
that he did that in order to scare Part
lows horse which the latter was trying
to drive upon his load to break his
furniture, especially a large mirror. 1t
was testified to by witnesses for the
defense that Partlow was intoxicated on
the day of the trouble and that he had
taken at least two drinks in "A hotel in
Brandon during the day, whereas Part
low had sworn that he was not in
Brandon at all on that day and was not
intoxicated. The testimony was very
conflicting on various points and evil
dence was introduced to impeaCh both
the respondent and the complaining
witness. Mr.. Russell managed the case
for the State unassisted and Judge Bliss
and Mr.. Davis represented the respond
ent. The evidence was all got in and
the arguments completed before the
regular recess Tuesday evening and Judge
Powers took up half an hour in his charge
to the jury Wednesday morning. The
jury returned into court in half an hour
and brought in "a verdict of guilty. All
the jurors except those sitting on the
case mentioned below We're then dis
charged for the term.
Criminal case No. four was started
soon after the Ayers jury went out to
consult. 1t was State VS.. Edgar Gale of
Starksboro, who was charged in an in
dictment found at the December term,
1893, with grand larceny in the stealing
of $32 in money from Edgar d. Taft of
Starksboro on the 18th day of May in
that year, the respondent having been
beyond the jurisdiction of the court so
much OF the time since the alleged crime
that the statute of limitations did not
run on the case. 1t was claimed that
Gale, who had been in the employ of Mr..
Taft for a short time, stole the money
from a wallet which was hidden in a
glove box in a room in Mr.. Taft's house.
States Attorney Russell was assisted in
the prosecution by w. II. Davis and
James b. Donaway had charge of the
defense by assignment OF the Court, who
also ordered a subpoena for three wit
nesses for the defense at the expense of
the state.
The following divorce cases were heard
at intervals during the term; Susan n.
Hubbard VS.. Asel II. Hubbard. These
parties were married several years ago
while the husband was one of the assist
ant judges of the Addison County court.
Their home. while they lived together,
which was not for a great while, was in
Whiting, but it was not long after the
marriage before disagreements arose.
Both parties had got well along in life
before their marriage and each had been
married before. Their disagreements
ended in bills and cross bills for divorce
and cross purposes all round. Judge
Bliss brought the present petition and
it was based ON the ground of wilful
desertion and there was no appearance
for Judge Hubbard. Decision was re-
served but the petition was subsequently
granted.