Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1922-10-06
JURY COMES HERE
In RAILROAD CASE
Suit of Vermont Valley Against
Power Co. Starts.
Two Corporations Lock Horns Over
Damages Caused to Railroad Property
by Freshet of March %, 1920.

After a jury had been impanelled in
the case of the Vermont Valley Railroad
Co. against the Connecticut River Power
Co. of New Hampshire, Windham county
court at Newfane took recess Tuesday
forenoon until 8 o'clock Wednesday in
order that the jury might come to Brat
tleboro and look over the premises
which will be the subject of discussion
in the succeeding days of the trial of the
case.
This case is a suit brought by the
railroad company to recover for damages
caused to the railroad property in the
spring Of 1920, which it is claimed was
due to the Vernon dam of the Power
Co. setting back the water and ice. The
! suit is for about 100000 but the actual
damages claimed are about $4,000.
| The jury drawn Tuesday morning con
sists of w. A. Wyman of Athens, Will
liam b. Leonard of Dummerston, Samuel
J. Walker of Grafton, A. G. Beals of
Guilford. i. e. French of Gulford,
Wayland S. Aver of Putney, f. s. Leon
ard of Bellows Falls. w. A. Eddy of
Townshend, l.. X. Webster of Wards
boro George W. Kentfeld of Whiting
ham. Frank Smith of Wilmington and
| Paul Il. Jones of Windham.
The jurors were closely questioned as
to whether they had formed any opinion
concerning the case through reading The
Reformer and the Vermont Phoenix
Counsel appearing for the Railroad
Co. are John G. Sargent of Ludlow, w.
b. c. Stickney of Rutland. Arthur p.
Carpenter of Brattleboro and Walter G..
Fenton of Rutland.
The defendants counsel are Hugh d.
Mcclellan of the firm of Mcclellan, Car
ney & Brckley of Boston and Harvey.
Maurice & Fits of Bratteboro.
With Sheriff Frank l.. Wellman in
charge the jurors came by automobile to
Brattleboro Tuesday forenoon, visited the
Connecticut river bridge between Bridge
street and Island Park, also visited
other points along the territory involved
in the case.
1t is understood that the plaintiff has
summoned 30 or more witnesses and will
summon others, and that the defense also
will summon large number. The first
witness was called by the plaintiff
Wednesday morning.
Court convened at o o'clock, and the
plaintiff offered in evidence the charter
of the Power Co. Objection was made
!, by the Power Co. to the introduction of
| its, charter for the purpose of showing
. liability. and the ensuing argument oc-
cupied about an hour. Judge Harrie r.
Chase took the question under advise
$ merit and the taking of testimony was
5 begun.
,nIiyiI Engineer James p. Helyar was
and Was on M the stand Is TIE first witness
cess was taken. His testimony was rel
alive to surveys and water elevations
made by him.
Other witnesses Wednesday afternoon
were DR.. Fremont Hamilton and A. f.
Plimpton of Brattleboro and Daniel f.
Riley of Hatfield, Mass, formerly of
Brattleboro.
Yesterday forenoon the witnesses were
: Mr.. Riley. William b. Allen, Andrew
Griffin. Charles H. Cakes, John P. Me
,Carthy, Henry Ebbighausen and Mrs
=, Lillian Durham, all of Brattleboro and
in the afternoon the witnesses were Ben
jamin A. Crown, photographer, Carl
Schorling, ST., and Carl SchOrling, jr.
The testimony of all these witnesses
related to food conditions as they saw
? them on March IS, 1920, and immedi
ately thereafter, and principally to con.
. ditions below the Boston 4 Maine rail
t road bridge, which could not have beer
responsible for the damming up of the
r water by ice between the bridge and the
. Power Cos dam.
I A number of divorce cases were heard
the latter part of last week, but decision
was reserved.
: The case Thursday was that of Emma
Poutre of Bellows Falls against Edward
Poutre, alleging intolerable severity
: neglect and refusal to support George
A. Weston of Bellows Falls appeared fol-
the plaintiff.
;. Next afternoon o. B. Hughes Of Brat
{ tleboro tried two cases. One was thai
= of Constance Abbott of Windhan
against George Abbott. alleging non sup
. port and desertion. and the other wa
t that of Norma Tyrel of Brattlebort
:, against Claude G. Tyrel, alleging intoler
v able severity, non-support and statu
tory offense.