Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1906-06-28
Windsor County Court.
June Term, 1906.

three lurles nau acquitted a. many
respondents on small charges, two
sdrunksn and one attempt to break out
OF alock-u at Windsor. When the
last verdict of not guilty was brought IN,
and the panel was sent home Tor the
week, the states attorney said 10 the
court that the jurors might as well De
disc harged for the term, as there would
be no more state cases for trial. AT TINS
time one case had been assigned LOT
Monday afternoon, 18th INST. when that
: time came. the states attorney said he
wished to enter a nolle prosequl In the
case for trial, as he did not think his
evidence would warrant a conviction.
The court said that inasmuch as the
attorney was sworn officer, acting
under an oath Of office, the court must
RELY upon the statement made; so the
clerk was directed TO enter nolle pros.
The rest of the prisoners in jail were al
lowed to go, some on their own recogniz-
auce and others were discharged by the
taller on order of the states attorneys so
that there was no one else TO be tried ana
the Jurors were sent home for the term.
The sudden collapse Of the criminal cali
endar left the court without business on
Tuesday and Wednesday, for everyone, re-
Il living upon a supposed week OF criminal
TRIALS had betaken themselves TO Mont
peler to district and state conyentionsi
the clerk was delegate, so was Assistant
Judge Markham. Thus il came about that
nothing was done until Thursday morn
ing, and then a string OF divorce cases
was produced, and they were tried as
ioilows:-
Grace A. Adams vs.. Guy A. Adams. The
petitioner lives at South Royalton and
was married ~ July, 1901; defendant
was a telegraph operator located at that
place sometimes he Is now supposed TO be
in Dakota. Bill granted on the ground
Of desertion. Tarbell a Whitman for
petitioner.
Winfred A. Edison vs. Minnie L. Edison.
/ The parties were married in Massachusetts,
| in October, 1899; the cause alleged was
desertion; the case was not quite made
out, and was continued TO enable petit
/ toner to obtain evidence from Massachu-
sets. Same counsel.
4 Nm Henry Reed VS. Martha l.. Reed.
The parties were married in November,
i 1890. In 1899, the parties lived at Hart
i ford, and the petitioner having gone to
4 Massachusetts after work which he OBJ
/ tanned, sent for his wife and children; she
wrote him she would come the next Satur-
i day. She did not arrive and he came up
10 see why; ne then learned she had
skipped out, leaving her children and GO
\ ing with a married man who also deserted
/ his wife and children. Bill granted for
/ desertion. +. &. Southgate for petitioner.
| Dora +. Pratt vs. Charles Il. Pratt. The
parties were married in 1890, and lived at
i Cavendish Charles is bad lot and has
| figured in court more than once. BIN
granted for adultery and intolerabe sever
/ ity. stickney, Sargent q Skeels for petit
| TONER.
George VIM. Edmunds VS. Anna Mabel
/ Edmunds. This was a petition for tenn
4 porary alimonv brought by the wife in
i the pending divorce case. Anna is abid-
/ ing at Stock bridge, and George at Bethel.
] In hearing no ordered ha Of
I S25 paid. Davis Il Davis for Mrs. Ed
munds; John j. Wilson for the husband.
Alice j. Churchill VS. Frank Churchill.
| The parties were married in 1874, and re-
side at Barnard; the husband drives the
daily Woodstock Bethel stage. Both
sides accuse the other OF acts OF intoler-
/ able severity, and II looked as If there
were faults on both sides. The case is
wi b the court. Wallace n. Batcheder
| for Mrs, and Charles Batchelder and j. {.
EnrIght for Mr., Churchill
Nettie NJ. Orne vs. G.. w. Orne. The
parties lived at South K yalton, and three
years ago defendant was convicted of
arson and sent TO states prison; on this
ground Nettie sought separation; but she
failed to prove her legal residence for that
purpose, so the pc itlon was dismissed.
j. {. Enright for petitioner.
Mabel ". Jones vs.. Allen Jones. This
was divorce case, the petitioner residing
in Windsor She was married in January,
1897, and the same day her husband de-
parted; she has not seen or heard OF him
since. Bill granted for desertion. Davis
a Davis for petitioner.
Joseph G. Moves VS.. Mary A. Moves
The parties are from Cavendish and were
married in 1865; about 10 years ago they
had falling out over a marriage OF a
daughter, which the petitioner opposed,
and rightly, for soon after the husband
deserted the daughter. But Mrs. Moves
didn't like the opposition and skipped,
Case with the court 5. Z. Emery for
| petitioner.
Flora B. Cady VS. Chester L. Cady
These parties lived in Barnard, where the
defendant is now residing on his farm, ne
| ing constable of the town. They had dis
agreements and drifted apart, condition
to be deplored, for DO h are very likely
people, and both had many friends. Mr..
Cady is still willing to go on again, and
make another effort TO agree. But Mrs.
| Cady seems set in her decision to remain
apart, feeling convinced that they can
/ never live happily together. The case Is
with the court. Wallace \. Batchelder
| for Mrs. Cady; Chas. Batchelder and +. e.
/ Southgate for Mr.. Cady
Emma NJ. Putnam vs.. Arthur II Put
/ nam. The parties were married in 1897
( The evidence showed that the husband
\ had treated his wife most brutally. They
| lived IN Bridgewater, where he rs still
\ abiding. Case with the court. Davis q
| Davis for petitioner.
| John j. Wilson, administrator Of the es-
! tate OF {. c. Ellis, IS. Daniel Durkee.
/ This was an action OF breach Of contract
/ in not taking $500 of shares IN the Min
| nehaha Oil company of California. The
/ defendant was a Barnard boy and at about
/ is went to California, leaving relatives in
| this county. The intestate, DIR. G. {. Ellis,
was from this part OF the country, but was
/ a resident of Somerville, Mass, at the
/ time of the transaction resulting in this
/ suit. Mrs. Ellis was a cousin OF Daniel
\ Durkee. In 1900, the doctor bad money to
/ invest and wrote to Durkce-"CO
| Dan" as he was called. He had just be-
come interested in get-rich-Quick
/ scheme which promised wonders, and per-
| suaded the doctor to take some stock
therein, which the doctor did TO the tune
of s2,500 After keeping the stock little
! while, DIR. Ellis became doubtful about its
| value, and wrote to Durkee in December,
| 1900, saying be would like to get rid of the
stock Ilurkpe a rOtp urUinu him To hold