The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1920-06-14
DISPUTE OVER LAND.
In Which Title Was Given by Righ.
of Possession.

|. tHelsed, June H. mere was 0D'
more criminal case and one civil cas-,
to be tried by jury and possibly an
other civil case when Orange county
court opened this week Cases vii
| probably be heard by the court afte,
the jury calendar has been disposed Of
| the court cases to continue week
The attention of the second week oi
| the term was devoted to the trial oi
| the following cases: William L. God
frey vs.. Sheldon Miller and the case
of Sheldon Miller pro Sc and as admin
istrator, both actions in tort, alleging
in each case trespass of the free hold
and since the plaintiff in each ease
| charged the defendant with trespass
| on practically the same piece of land
| II was agreed by counsel that the two
cases be. tried together. The psrtms
in the cases were neighbors whose
lands Joined each other, and Mr.. God
frey had titled and exercised sae right
of ownership of small area of land
for more than 40 years which, after
dispute arose and action was brought
by Mr. Godfrey against Mr.. Miller for
trespass and after an exhaustive search
vi tUt TttOiuS. EflVWtu tlldl ldd
record title to, and thereupon brought
his suit against Mr.. Godfrey for tres
pass.
Each party employed land survey
or, who plotted and pr.sented blue
prints to the land in dispute and the
cases were bitterly contested from the
start to flush and the trial Of the
cases occupied six days and from the
evidence deduced the jury found that
Mr.. Godfrey was the owner of the land
in question: having derived his right of
ownership by adverse possession, which
finding and verdict by the jury deter
mined tie division line between the
parties to come Sc close to a sawmlli
owned by Mr. Miller AS To deprive him
OF the right to enter upon the land of
Mr. Godfrey for the purpose of making
necessary repairs on his mill. while the
victor is always entitled to his spoils
and while there has for several years
been much unfriendly feeling between
the two families. before the parties
left the court house, negotiations were
entered into whereby Mr.. Godfrey CON
yeyed to Mr. Miller a sufficient number
of feet of land in the rear of the mill
to enable him to make sucn repairs as
may become necessary on his mil IN
the future. H. X. Darling and NJ. NJ.
Wilson were attorneys for Mr.. Godfrey
and j. c. Sherburne and David S. Con-
ant were the attorneys for Mr., Miifer
The next ease for trial was State VS..
William Harrison Pomeroy of Yer
shire. who was charged with the crime
of adultery The respondent pleaded
not guilty and the trial of the case
covered two days, the jury returning a
verdict of not guilty. States Attorney
ney John C. Sherburne prosecuted and
the respondent was represented by II.
X. Darling and NJ NJ. Wilson.
One of the unique features of the
Godfrey Miller eases was the presence
of Madison NJ. Miller, % years old, as
a witness, and notwithstanding Mr..
Miller's burden of years, his mind was
clear and active. his memory acute,
snd his testimony was clear and clean
cut and this fact, together with the
fact that il is very unusual for pes
SON so advanced in years TO be seen
upon the witness stand. gave the trial
Of these cases something of dramatic
effect.
The following divorce cases have |
been disposed of, viz: Ardin NJ. Ord
way vs.. Elizabeth G. 0rdwsy of Brain
tree. A bill was granted the petitioner
for the cause of wilful desertion. NJ.
NJ. Wilson for the petitioner.
George j Rattee VS.. Calarissea Il.
Rattee of Randolph. Bill granted for
he cause of wilful desertion. NJ. NJ.
Wilson for the petitioner.
Mira II. Mason vs.. Frank A. Mason,
parties from Bradford Bill granted
or wilful desertion. William n.
Sprsgue for petitioner