Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1918-03-14
may END VERMONT
MARBLE CO. SUIT
Eastman and Clement Ask That
25-Year.Old Contract Phase
Be Discontinued.

Rutland. March S-The controversy
between the Vermont Marble company
and George p. Eastman and Perciva1
w. Clement. concerning boundary
line between adjoining marble proper
ties at West Rutland and involving
claim for heavy damages for alleged
trespass. took an unexpected turn to.
day when counsel for Eastman and
Clement moved before Judge Frank L.
Fish Of vergennes for discontinuancs
OF that phase of the ease having to do
with the discovery last spring Of an
alleged 2o-year-old agreement which,
II proved valid, would have made the
Vermont concern indebted to the other
marble company for hundreds of thou
sands of dollars. This agreement,
which the Vermont concern branded
as forgery, was the subject of a hear
Ing lasting two weeks at which much
expert testimony was introduced. Judge
Fish to-day granted the motion for dis
continuance Of the bill which called for
review of the case. on the alleged
newly discovered evidence contained in
the disputed paper. This leaves the
Ease In the status in which 1t was a
year ago, when the Vermont supreme
court upheld judgment in the lower
court which awards damages of some
$4,000 to the Vermont Marble com.
pany.
The arter-century-ol agreement
created sensation In legal circles
when counsel announced that it had
been discovered on the eve of the ex-
piration of the 25-year contract which
II contained among old papers in the
Office of the late Attorney Joel c. Baker
of this city. 1t was STATED at the hear
ing which followed that Attorney Err
nest H. O'Brien. who was not in the
case. had found the r1per and turned
It over to counsel for Eastman and
Clement The paper contained what
purported to be the signatures of sew
eral professional men and marble men
prominent In Rutland in the early nine.
ties but both sides in the case disclaim-
ed all knowledge of the existence of
the document until It appeared last
spring.
After some of the greatest handwriting
experts in the country. typewriter makers
and many others had testified the matter
went to Judge Fish to decide whether or
not the paper was pure forgery or a
valid contract whereby the boundary line
was established where Eastman claimed
it should be and whereby the Vermont
company must pay the other side huge
sum for blocks Of marble puarried In
given period. Judge Fish had not an
nounced his decision when the Vermont
Marble company filed petition a few days
ago asking to be permitted to introduce
newly discovered evidence In the case.
A. hearing for this purpose had been set
for rext week but the move was followed
by a petition from George p. Eastman
for the right to change his testimony given
at the lengthy hearing last October TAX
ing the stand this morning he stated that
his evidence given in October to the effect
that he did net know of the existence Of
the alleged contract until May I. 1917. was
incorrect: he did know about 1t prior to
that date.
Following this statement Attorney John
G. Sargent of Ludlow. who. with Walter
S. Fenton and Charles l.. Howe OF Rut-
land. represent Eastman and Clement,
moved for the discontinuance. Lawrence.
Lawrence & Stafford of this city, Frank
&C. Partridge of Proctor and Frank c.
Archibald of Manchester. attorneys for
the Vermont Marble company. agreed to
the dismissal providing that the concern
they represent be given it's costs. This
was agreed to and it is anticipated that a
final decree embodying the findings of the
Vermont Supreme Court will be made.
This is one of the most important cases
that the courts of Rutland county have
had in many years