Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-03-20
old" DOCUMENT
IN EASTMAN CASE
Famous 25-Year.Old "Agree.
ment" Figures in Perjury Case
Against Marble Producer

Rutland, March 1.-THE jury in the
Eastman perjury case had an opportunity
in Rutland county court to-day to ex-
anime the famous so-called 25-year-old
document having to do with a boundary
line controversy between the Vermont
Marble company and George p. Eastman
and which Is the principal reason why
Mr.. Eastman is facing a jury to-day.
The paper. inscribed with the names of
a number of prominent business and pro-
fessional men, some of whom are now
lead. is claimed by the Vermont Marble
company. and by the State to be a
forgery. 1t appeared in court to-day as
State xhibit A, when Attorney Warren
X. Austin of Burlington, who Is assisting
Attorney-General Frank C. Archibald OF
Manchester, read extracts from the bill
of review filed by Eastman after the
Vermont company had won an advantage
over him and which resulted in a lengthy
hearing before Judge Frank l.. Fish of
Vergennes to determine the validity of
the agreement. Eastman eventually with
drew the document after the Vermont
Marble company had made a statement
as to certain evidence which they would
be able to produce.
The document had direct bearing on
>AAfh 10 Nhh
claimed in the bill of review that he
had no knowledge of the existence Of
the "old agreement nor of the tran
saction referred to in 1T until 1t was
handed to Eastman's counsel on May
6, 1917, by Ernest H. O'Brien OF this
city, who claimed to have found it in
an old file. The agreement was dated
July is. 1892. and the matter contained
in it meant many thousands of dollars
in Eastman's pocket If he could have
proved the paper genuine.
Touching also upon the subject of al
legged false evidence given by Mr.. East
man. Miss Sara L. Ryan, who took a ste
%nographic report of the proceedings be-
fore Judge Fish. read extracts from Mr..
Eastman's testimony at that time. This
was particularly as to where the respond
ent was on certain occasions and leads
up to the claim Of the prosecution that
Mr.. Eastman was not where he said he
was, being engaged 1t Is further alleged,
in matters connected with the making of
the alleged false agreement.
Attorney John w. Gordon of Eastman's
counsel. using a report made by Mrs.
Katherine A. Nichols of Brattleboro, off,
clal stenographer al the hearing before
Judge Fish. as a basis attempted to show
that Miss Ryan's notes differed in detail
from those Of Mrs. Nichols but his asso-
ciate, j. C. Jones. called him off as 1t de-
veloped that Miss Ryan Is Mr.. Jones'
stenographer in the present trial.
The documentary evidence was fol-
lowed by testimony of officials Of the
Vermont Marble company, President
Frank C. Partridge, General Superin-
tendent Samuel A. Howard. Assistant
General Superintendent Benjamin Will
liams and George c. Robinson. super
intendent at West Rutland. taking the
stand in turn. They testified that they
had examined carefully the files and
records of the Vermont Marble COM
pany for many years back and they
could I'M no record of any agreement
such as is contained in the alleged
false document, nor in the company's
files any paper abiding to any such
quarry rights. Mr.. Partridge showed
that he had been familiar with the
official business of the Vermont Marble
company since 1889.