St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1907-12-11
County Court.
A Verdict of One Dollar in the First
Case. The Mason Will Case now
on Trial County Finances.


The first jury case tried occupied about
a day and the Insignificant sum o.
$22.70 was involved. 1t was the Hard
wick case of 7. T. Daniel v. Charles r.
Davis, apt, and was case in general
assumpsit on the recovery OF the rent Of
a stone shed. Billiard & Morse were the
attorneys for the plaintiff and David c.
Porter represented the defendant. The
jury brought in verdict Thursday
morning for the plaintiff to recover 81
damages and his costs. The jurymen
on the case were Moses n Whitehill,
Byron R. Smith, Oscar B. Vance, Herbert
Stanton, David H. Smith W. G. San
born, Eugene L. Marsh, George H.
Morrill,, William c. McCray, George G.
Nelson, George Wright and John D.
Williams.
These two divorce case have been dis
continued: Fife ]. Collins v. Frank B.
Collins; Oliver Stone v. Victoria Stone.
This divorce case was continued:
May M. Goss v. Willard Goss.
These cases on the jury list have been
disposed of: Charles H. Robinson v. St.
Johnsbury & Lake Champlain Railroad
Co., CON-; l. A. Norcross v. ]. F. Lowell
settled and discontinued; P. Ballentine
and Sons v. Eddie Barr continued; E.
T. & H. K. Ide v. Boston and Maine
R. R. Co., continued; St. Johnsbury and
Lake Champlain R. r. Co. v. George
Rogers, settled and discontinued; Effe ].
Russell, admx., v. Robert Allen, apt,
continued; Effie Collins, apt. v. W. S..
Cheney, continued; Cushman and
Somers v. A. S. Hunt, settled and dis
continued; George w. Jenkins v. George
p Ide. continued; Mary Louise Ord,
proponent of the will of Susan M
Clement v. Frank L. Clement, contestant,
apt, continued; Ida E. Douse v. Millen
Farrow, continued; Henry M. Stevenson
v..Frank c., Dow, settled and discon-
tinued
There are 80 state cases on the docket
to be disposed of at this term of court.
These cases have been discontinued:
Martin Goodno v. W. ]. Bedell; Williams
& Clark Fertilizer Co. v. R. A. Ordway;
Charles Thomas v. Albert c. Foster; A.
6. Fellows, apt. v. Frank E. Good
enough, by death of defendant; O. V.
Hooker & Son v. B. A. Babocok and IT,;
Ernest Orion v. F. E. Dodge; F. M.
Keller Co. v. Harry B. Gordon, apt,
and First Nat Bank of st. Johnsbury
and Searles and Smith Trustees.
These cases have been settled and dis
continued: Rufus E. Carter v. John M.
Lebourveau ct al; Rufus E. Carter, apt
v. A. Nd. Bradley; Lucius S. Freeman v.
Marshall A. Fay; Charles A. Vail v.
Frank B. Gilman, Guardian, apt; Cush-
man and Somers VA. S. Hunt and Henry
M. Stevenson v. Frank c. Dow.
The case Of State v. J. Negretti was
called and disposed of Monday. This
was Hardwick liquor case in which
Negretti pleaded guilty to one offense
two years ago and the case was con-
tinued for sentence. Negretti was SEN
fenced to not more than nine months or
less than six months at the House of
Correction at Rutland. Sentence was
suspended and he was placed in charge
of the probation officer.
On Thursday morning the will case of
Martha Mason, prepayment of the will OF
Jane Mason v. John Mason, contestant,
apt. was reached and will probably be
on trial through this week. The plain
tiff is represented by Howe & Hovey and
r. w. Simonds, while the attorneys for
the defence are Dunnett & Slack and
Marshall Montgomery. The evidence Of
the proponent was that her mother was
of sound mind when the will was made,
and that no undue influence was brought
to bear upon her in the disposition of her
property. 1t also appeared that aside
from some small legacies, the property
was left to the testatrix in equal shares.
The defense claim that the mind of the
testatrix had become unduly influenced
by her daughter, the prepayment in the
case, who lived alone with her mother on
the home farm in Waterford. AS an
evidence OF this it is shown that in the
will the said Martha Mason is given the
right to take the farm at the price of
So, 900, according to contract entered
into between the testatrix and Martha
sometime previous to the execution of
the will. This, according to the con-
testant, is less than half the actual value
of the farm; and that the testatrix would
never have allowed the farm to go at any
such price unless unduly Influenced So
the value of the farm is one of the main
issues in the case. The contestant con.
tends that the will should be set aside
and the full value paid for the farm, thus
increasing the value of the estate and, in
this way, the respective shares OF the de-
visees.
The evidence of the prepayment shows
that the farm is worth no more than the
price to be paid by her for it.
Following is the financial condition of
Caledonia county as certified by the
assistant judges.
To Bal. in Treasury. Dec. 4, 1906, S 203.34
Rent of Jail House, 5000
/" Proportion of Peddlers Licences, 127.71
" Taxes collected, 1220.t4
r 1901 10
BY paid orders outstanding,
Dec. 1, 1906. s 174.73
BY orders drawn and paid during
BY Balance in Treasury. Dec. 1907, s14.o7
$16O1.1e
Order No. $50 for $3.50 issued 1905, can
celled. There are two outstanding orders
amounting to $500.
The above is a true statement of the fnan-
/, 1907.
state Rnrrows Nancy