The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1872-12-18

r. COURT OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES btp.--l ne
second ease tried was No. l ON the Circuit
Court list---John f. Stiger VS.. James L. Van
Syckles This was an action of Replevin,
brought by the plaintiff to recover of the de-
fendant a horse which he claimed he unjustly
detained from him, and this action was brought
to determine the title of the plaintiff to the
horse. The defendant showed that the plain
tifes right and title to the horse had been
sold by the Sheriff some five or six years ago,
and from the date of the Sheriff sale to the
present time no title of the horse rested in the
plaintiff. The case occupied two entire days,
ON account of the great number of witnesses,
and the counsel engaged finished their argu-
ments on Friday afternoon, when the Court
adjourned until Monday morning. Upon re-
opening of Court the sChief-Justice charged
the jury at some length, and they were sent
out, but soon returned with verdict in favor
of the defendant Hoffman and Voorhees, for
plaintiff; Allen for defendant.
The next case was Abraham We'll vs. Har-
man H. Crammer. This was an action
brought to recoverthe amountof s10t.o0 which
We'll claimed of Crammer for goods sold, and
he being several times applied to for money,
butrefusing to pay. suit was instituted for
the money. We'll proved the goods sold to
Crammes also that he applied to him for
the money, and that he promised to pay him
the amount due. Here the plaintiff rested his
case, and the defendant failing to make out a
case, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of
the plaintiff, of S12s.37. Hoffman and Voor
hees for defendant.
The third case on the Circuit list was next
moved-Peter T. Philhower VS.. William G:
Buck This was an action brought to deter
mine the right Of using a by7road running
over the lands of the defendant, and he filling
the land this road in. question passed over,
refused to let the plaintiff use the road, there
fore this suit was instituted to compel the
defendant to re-open the road. The plaintiff
endeavored to prove that the road had been
in uninterrupted use for more than twenty
years; there were other roads that he could
use, but they were not as easy of access to
his lands as the road in question. The defen-
dant proved that the road was not in uni1fter-
rupted use for twenty years, and claimed that
the plaintiff had no right to pass overhis field ;
some nine yeaas ago he had obstructed and
forbidden the further use of the road, and
since that time had occasionally obstructed
the road and forbidden the use of it. The
case occupied a day, as there were quite a
number of witnesses to examine which neces-
sarily heightened the trial. The case was
submitted to the jury on Tuesday afternoon,
when they rendered a verdict of nominal
damage of six cents for the plaintiff. Allen
for plaintiff; Voorhees, and Van Fleet fer
defendant.
The next case was that of Beniah Gano VS.
Elizabeth Tomson and Nahum w. Johnson,
Executors of William Tomson, decd This
was an action brought ON promissory note
male by Nahum w. Tomson, in 1861, and
the endorsements of interest ON the note were
made up to 1868. The plaintiff endeavored
to prove that by the endorsements the pay
ment of the note was acknowledged by the
Executors but they could produce no other
evidence but that Nahum w. Tomson, one of
the makers of the note, paid the interest as
the interest on his own individual note. In
the absence of evidence to fix the acknowledge
ment of the note by Executors, the plaintiff
was non-suited. Allen and Kuhl for plaintiff;
Van Fleet for defendants. f A0
This was the last case tried ON the civil
list, and the following is the disposition of all
the cases noticed for trial:
SUPREME COURT.
William J. Fisher vs. Benjamin Coleman,
ct al, Adm'rs of William r.. Allen, decd. Not
at issue. Ta
William c. Alpaugh vs. Harmon II. Titus.
Verdict for plaintiff, $213.39 and costs.
CIRCUIT COURT.
John f. stiger VS.. James l.. Van Syckel.
Verdict for defendant
Abraham We'll VS.. Harmon H. Cramer.
Verdict for plaintiff, 1928 81.
Peter j. Philhower VS.. William c. Buck.
Verdict for plaintiff, cents.
Jacob S. Hoppock VS.. Marcus d. Wells.
Judgment relicta.
Admr's Amos Moore, decd vs. Robert III.
Smith. OFF by consent.
Sarah Spencer VS.. Jacob Gulick. Settled.
Settled
Beniah Gano VS.. Ex'rs Nahum w. Tomson.
Tried--non-sut.
Frenchtown Foundry and Machine Co. VS..
Charles A. Robertson. Off for term.
John A. Davis VS.. Thomas Banghart.
Countermanded.
Frenchtown Foundry and Machine Co. VS..
Samuel Rockafellar. Countermanded.
Martin O'I,lien VS.. James Welsh. Settled.
William ]. Anderson VS.. Emily "A. Apgar.
off by consent.
Maria Rake VS. Green Sergeant. Settled.
Mordecai w. Mills VS. Philip Alpaugh OFF
by consent ~
The Grand jury came in on Tuesday after
noon, and presented the Court with thirteen
indictments, and among them were three in
dictments against the prisoners held for the
murder of the ncgros at Pattenburg. The
men indicted for the murders are John Coyle,
Patrick Delay Patrick Mccoy, John Kelly,
Bernard McFadden, John Bogue, and David
College. The prisoners plead not guilty to
the charge, and the Court set the trial down
for Monday, the 18th inst. There being no