Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1910-10-14

Frederick Morse Case on Trial In County
court-Defendant Has Not Yet Appear
ed-other Court Business.
with the exception of Monday the time
of the county court this week has been
taken up with the trial of the case of
Mrs. Ellen Il. Frederick of South New
fame against Mrs. Lillian Morse of that
place, in which Mrs Frederick seeks to
recover damages in the sum of $4,000, al
leging that Mrs. Morse alienated the af-
fections of the plaintiffs husband. Mrs.
Frederick has testified, but Mrs. Morse
has not yet appeared in court. George
II. Frederick, husband of the plaintin,
has been a prosperous mill man, operat-
ing a portable mill in various places, and
he and Mrs. Frederick were married in
1906.
About Is witnesses testified in behalf Of
the plaintiff whose side of the case was
concluded yesterday afternoon. Their tes-
timony tended to show that improper re-
lations existed between Frederick and the
defendant and that in April of this year
Frederick left his wife. Testimony was
introduced tending to show that soon
after Frederick went away Mrs Fred
erick found a note from him on her bureau
saying that neither she nor LIP Morse
ever would see him again. 1t said that
he was trying to break away from Mrs.
Morse. The note was placed in evidence.
| There has been testimony also to the
effect that Frederick and Mrs. Morse Of
ten were seen together, and the plaintiff
alleges that at one time they were at the
| Brattleboro House and that Frederick
registered John Aldrich and wife"
one of the defendants witnesses yes
terday afternoon was Cecil c. Turner,
until recently proprietor of the Brattle-
boro House The hotel register was pro-
| duced, but Mr.. Turner testified that he
did not know Frederick and did not know
| of his being at the hotel. Thus far the
| defendants witnesses have been largely
| from Newfane and their testimony has
| been to the effect that Mrs. Morse often
: carried persons from place to place. II
! is understood that the defendant will try
to show a conspiracy between Mr.. and
| Mrs. Frederick to obtain money from her
! Chase and Daley are counsel for Mrs
| Frederick. II. G. and +. E. Barber rep
! resent Mrs. Morse.
The jury in the suit of Warren G.. Doc
| little against Henry C. Clark, which was
a suit to recover the balance due for hog.
sold to the defendant returned a verdc
/ Friday morning for the plaintiff to recov'
er $62.50 and interest, amounting e
| S72.l5. The amount sued for was $103
The defendant had refused payment OF
| the ground that the hogs had contracted
| cholera at the time of their delivery I,
, him.
In the action OF trover brought b,
Goodnow, Pearson and Hunt against Ed
ward n. Starkey the jury returned a yer
dict Friday afternoon for the plaintiff 4
recover the full amount of the bill, SOS
with interest, or a total of about 81
The evidence tended to show that Good
now, Pearson & Hunt delivered SOM
clothing to Mr.. Starkey to be used a
samples by him in the sale Of goods ant
that he took one suit for his own use AM
sold some more. MIR. Starkey did not ap
pear at the trial of the case but ii wa
brought out that he claimed to have los
his pocketbook and was therefore unabl
to settle with the firm. The defens
claimed that Mr.. Starkey was acting fl
fiduciary capacity, for which reason al
action of trover could not be maintained
II. G. and F. i. Barber appeared for III
plaintiff and Gibson and Waterman 70
the defendant
The next case was that Of Fred c. Ram
of Bellows Falls against Peter Bordo O
Windsor, which was an action allegln
deceit in the exchange Of a horse. Ryde
and Graham of Bellows Falls appeare
for the plaintiff and Bert f. Cole O
Windsor for the defendant. Mr.. Ran
claimed that he exchanged a brown pa
Ger with Mr.. Bordo for a black mare an
that Mr.. Bordo represented that tn
mare was sound and all right. He sal
that after a few days a veterinary pulle
a sponge out of the mares nose an
that she proved to be a whistler. MI
Bordo claimed that he made no represen
tation about the mare and that moreove
she belonged to his son. who was presen
when the trade was made.
The jury returned a verdict Tuesda
for Mr.. Rand to recover $3.50 and costs