The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1907-11-18
pUNNETT RAkEs JURY
Said Howard Verdict Shows Rancid
and Stupid Prejudice.

In ORLEANS county court at Newport
Friday afternoon Judge W. w. Miles
denied the motion to set aside the YER
dict against George T. Howard of
Craftsbury, for Incorporating state
funds while serving as a member of
the state board of railroad commits
sioners.
When court came in Friday the at
torneys for the defense moved that the
verdict OF SS9.45 be set aside, on the
ground that the verdict was contrary
to the evidence in the case and In alb
solute disregard of the courts charge
to the jury. The motion was argued
at length by Alexander Dunnett, who
took up in detail the consideration out
of the 800 items in the original bill OF
specifications. These items were as
follows:
TO amount Illegally charged by
you as railroad commissioner
for services upon the following
date each at Sc per day, Oc-
tober /, 1904. October 3, 1904,
July s, 1905, February 16, 1906
total, four days. .$24.00
ITO amount Illegally charged by
you as railroad commissioner
for cash paid out for expenses
for the dates named In last
item less team and telephone. 1900
ITO amount Illegally charged by
you as services for railroad
commissioner December 4 and
5, 1905. 1900
! ITO amount Illegally charged by
| you as railroad commissioner
for expenses on last named
dates 1915
ITO amount Illegally charged by
you as railroad commissioner
J for services on February 5,
| l9Ub ................... 600
TO amount Illegally charged by
| you as railroad commissioner
| for expense ON last named date 700
| expense on last named date. zoo
! TO amount illegally charged by
you for services as railroad
commissioner June 90, 1906. soc
| 10 amount Illegally charged by
you as railroad commissioner
Tor expenses on last named
date =. 3.45
10 amount Illegally charged by
for expenses on June rs, 1906. 3.25
| iOtdl ss.ss.s. oOJ.fD
These items were argued in detail
by Mr.. Dunnett, being the only ones
left for the jury to consider out of the
800 items in the original bill of specifi
cations. Mr. burnett argued that the
evidence showed that Mr.. Howard per
formed actual services on the DAYS in
question and the auditor understood
he did when he allowed the accounts
III the state should recover anything II
should be only for the difference there
might be in the hotel charges in Yer
mont as compared with hotel charges
at Hanover, n. H., and Springfield
Mass.
Referring to the state convention
day item, he said that the state should
not recover because Fl. S. bingham
and Fuller c. Smith, the other mem
bers of the state railroad commission
did not remember that any bushes.
was done on that day. In closing his
argument he referred to the jury al
inconsiderately and ignorantly march
ing into court without any apparent
consideration OF the case. He sale
cleanliness was next to godliness ant
that the jury ought to take bath al
their verdict showed rancid anC
stupid prejudice on the part of an un
clean jury.
In reply States Attorney 4. A
Cook said he regretted the attorney
general had not remained to protec
the verdict and said he had profes
sional sympathy with any brother at
torney who lost his. case. He urged
the court not to be at all influenced b,
any appeal to his conscience as to set
ting aside the verdict and said an Or
leans county jury was composed o
twelve clean men. He urged that thi.
jury had exercised their right in weigh
ing the evidence and believed wha
| they thought was tho trI,th