The Vermont Tribune, Ludlow, Friday, July 19, 1889 WINDSOR COUNTY COURT 7/19/1889 May Term, 1889 Hon, W. G. VEAZEY, Judge Last Week Alphonzo SMITH of Windsor came before the court on an information for selling liquor, and plead guilty to 7 offenses; was fined $10 for each offense, with costs. Leander BERDEAU and James BIRMINGHAM were complained of for keeping a nuisance at Windsor, and fined $50 and $30 and costs, and the nuisance abated. (Don't ask me! RHB) This Week The past week has been remarkable for the number of contested divorce cases. Among the most seriously contested were, first, McCABE v. McCABE. These parties reside in Hartford, and the testimony of the petitioner, Susan McCABE, and her two children, tended to show that she endured much abuse from her husband, Peter; but the defense brought out a large number of the goodly neighbors, who were unsparing in their statements in regard to the temperament of Susan. This case occupied nearly all day, and the contest over the custody of the children and property was dwelt upon quite freely. The Court granted a divorce to Susan, with about $100 alimony, one-half the household furniture, and the custody of the two daughters, and gave the custody of the two boys to the father. HAWKINS v. HAWKINS.--This was instituted on petition of Budd D. HAWKINS of Reading against his wife, Hattie, charging her with adultery with Honestus STEARNS. It appeared that there had been some unpleasantness in the family, and Mrs. HAWKINS went to her father's in Pittsford, and shortly afterwards went to Florida, on a parcel of land on which Mr. STEARNS had formerly lived; and depositions were taken showing that the size of the house and sleeping-room, and the furniture, indicated that the crime had been committed. Also that STEARNS was seen in the room that she was in. The defense introduced testimony showing that there was but one room in the house; that she was disgusted when she found what a house it was, but that she was about two miles from neighbors; that she occupied a portion of the room that evening, having previously enclosed it with sheets; that on the next night two men, under the influence of liquor, came there with guns and pistols and threatened their lives, and they immediately returned North; that she went South for her health, by and with the advice and consent of her parents and a brother-in-law of Mr. HAWKINS, who furnished the means to take her down in charge of an old man, Mr. STEARNS, an intimate friend of the family. That any insinuation of the crime alleged was false in every particular. Judge VEAZEY, in disposing of the case, said in substance: That Mrs. HAWKINS' going South with Mr. STEARNS might at first seem an indiscretion but in taking into account the old man, an intimate of the family, their consent, and all the circumstance, it amounts hardly to indiscretion. They did not understand the style of living in Florida, and how little is attached to their occupying the same room. We doubt whether this old man intended to mislead her in his representation of the place; but there were some things to show that he did mislead her. We doubt whether she was in fault. She was sick in that God-forsaken country, taken off into the woods in a shanty, the habitation of bats and wasps, and there she was. She began to offer protests at once. She began to clean it up. Then to have two men appear with horses and guns in the night, admitting that they were supplied with the sinews of war, but denying that they were drunk--only under its influence. We don't think this case made out, and the case should be dismissed in such a way that no stain should be attached to anyone. WHITCOMB v. WHITCOMB.--This was another contested case. There was evidence of intolerable severity, but from all appearances the wife had condoned that by her letters written subsequently, and the case was continued to see how the parties should get along. PUTNAM v. PUTNAM.--This was a petition for divorce by Mrs. PUTNAM. This was a petition for divorce by Mrs. PUTNAM. There was evidence of intolerable severity and refusal to support; but the petitionee claimed it was all false, and introduced evidence that he had offered to furnish support away from her mother's. Petition dismissed. Other divorces granted without contest: Eliza A. BEARD from Orrin BEARD, with $300 alimony. Nellie A. KINNEY from David L. KINNEY, for willful desertion. Maria PHILLIPS from Lucian PHILLIPS, for intolerable severity. Maria BUSHWAY from Julius BUSHWAY, for intolerable severity, with custody of minor children. Lucy J. BUNDY from Lewis S. BUNDY, for intolerable severity, with custody of children. Almira BEDFORD from Joseph T. BEDFORD, for desertion. Lizzie G. WHITMAN from Frank H. WHITMAN, for intolerable severity. WILLIAMSON v. JOHNSON.--This was an action to recover a sum of money furnished defendent to purchase a wedding outfit, when they were engaged to be married. It appeared that the defendant, Mrs. JOHNSON, was a WINSLOW from Sharon, and that she received $350 from plaintiff to buy her clothes, and afterwards threw up the engagement and never returned any part of the money advanced. The court stated that the plaintiff should recover, but that he did not see how he could in this action, and rendered judgement for defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion to amend, and took exceptions. TUFTS v. Chester--Defendant's counsel made a motion to set aside the verdict, which was refused; also a motion for a new trial, to which the court stated, in substance, that a right of recovery depends on a contract, and the jury should find a contract upon which to base this verdict. I am utterly unable to see how the jury found a contract. Take Mr. ADAMS' deposition: the thought of it negates the assumption of a contract. The jury was not justified in understanding that plaintiff understood there was a contract. She even repudiated the idea of taking money from Chester. But Mr. ADAMS recognized her equity in getting something; she rendered good service and saved the town something. There is an element of justice in her claim. And although the evidence did not show a contract, yet the jury might have believed the plaintiff, notwithstanding the weight of evidence against her. We believe, according to the strictrule of law, this verdict was wrong; but there is an element of justice in it--a dangerous kind of justice. It debauches justice; it works bad; but there is no certainty that another jury would give a different verdict. Ludlow v. BROWN This was a hearing on the legal right of the Trustees of Ludlow village to make legal rules and regulations in regard to swift driving in Ludlow. Judgement for the defendant. Exceptions by plaintiff. State v. WARNER.--Bonds chancered to $100 and forfeited. State v. HINDS.--Indictment for Perjury. The prominent people of Chester sent a petition to the court asking that this respondent be dealt leniently with. He made out his tax-bill and stated that he had personal estate of $6,000, while returns showed $12,000. The court chancered his $1,600 bond to $750, which was forfeited. Court adjourned, July 12th, at 12 m., without day. Transcribed by Ruth Barton -- Ruth Barton mrgjb@sover.net Dummerston, VT