The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1874-04-29

Richard s. Kuhl W. Augustus B. Smith
and Jacob L. Martin, partners trading as
Smith y Martin, and John T. Hewitt. The
action WAS brought to recover the amount
due upon promissory note for $3.50, and
two checks, one for 81, 900, and the other for
$4,000, No plea was intelposed by hewitt,
and Judgment was obtained against him by
default. Smith and Martin disputed their
liability only upon the checks, the promissory
note not being contested. The two checks
were dated tho latter part Of the year 1869,
were drawn by Smith & Martin upon the
Universe National Bank of Railway, TO the
order Of Hewitt, endorsed by Hewitt and
knhl, and deposited in the Hunterdon County
National Bank of Pennington, to the credit
of Hewitt. The plaintiff proved the sigma
lures of the defendants that had paid for and
taken up the checks, and rested Cortland
Parker, Esq, who appeared for the defend
ants, i'll his opening, stated that the defend
ants were not liable upon the checks. for the
reason that no benefit had ever accrued to
them that they signed the checks in blank
for Hewitt's benefit, authorizing him TO fill
them for small amounts that the checks
were filled by Kuhl Cor Hcwitt's benefit, and
he thought kuhl himself received some bene-
fit thereby. The testimony developed the
following facts: Hewitt had been in the habit
of presenting the blank checks of Smith &;
Martin to kt,lil, directing him to fill them IN
for such amounts us he desired, which checks
Kuhl endorsed and placed to the credit of
Hewitt. Hewitt asking for larger checks
than kuhl was disposed to become endorser
upon, he told Hewitt he would endorse no
more unless he had power of attorney from
Smith 4 Martin, authorizing him to ill their
checks. He drew the power of ATTORNEY,
sent it to Hewitt, and in few days it was
returned, pnrporting to be signed by both
Smith and Martin. This paper authorized
Kuhl to fill up the blank checks of Smith IS
Martin upon the Railway Bank, for such
amounts as would keep Hewitt's account in
the Pennington Bank good, and it was proven
that the two checks in question were filled up
for that purpose. This power of attorney, it
was insisted, was q forgery, and vast amount
of testimony was adduced to prove that the
name of Jacob l.. Martin thereto was not in
his handwriting, he himself tcstifying that
he did not sign it. The general impression
derived from the testimony was, that Smith
signed both Martins and his own name to the
power. Upon the question of benefit, both
defendants testified that the checks were
wholly and entirely for Hewitts accomoda-
ton, that they were not in the least interested
in or benefited by them, and that they
simply loaned him their name to use in his
business This was disputed by the plaintiff,
and great number of checks drawn in the
same way were offered in evidence. Checks
drawn by Hewitt upon the Hunterdon County
National Bank, of Pennington, to the order of
Smith & Martin, and deposited in the Railway
Bank, were also offered by the plaintiff to
show that Smith & Martin and Hewitt were
carrying on what is called a exiting" bust
ness. That is, Smith & Martins checks up
on the Railway Bank were deposited to the
credit of Hewitt at the Pennington Bank,
while lIewitt's checks drawn in favor of
Smith& Martin, upon the Pennington Bank,
went to the credit of Smith IS Martin at tho
Railway Bank, thereby gaining time for both
parties while the checks were passing through
the corresponding banks at Elizabeth and
Trenton This was denied by the defendants,
they alleging that tile checks drawn by Hewitt
to their order were endorsed by them in
blank that Hewitt used them for his own
purposes, and that they never entered into
their account in bank. Upon this point tho
officers of the Railway Bank were suppGnaed
to produce their books and strange to relate,
those books did not contain word nor show
a figure relating to these checks. The Court
charged strongly in favor Of the plaintiff,
among other things stating that check
signed in blank is of itself an unlimited letter
OF credit, and the person receiving it has u
right to believe, unless otherwise instructed,
that the holder is authorized to fill it up to
any amount. Verdict for plaintiff for the full
amount due upon the note and check.
The State VS.. Edward Cuddy. Indictment,
keeping disorderly house. The wife of the
defendant keeps boarding house at the
Tunnel, in Union township. in connection
Herewith she keeps liquor for SALE ostensibly,
by the quart. All the testimony adduced by
the State in support of the charge was that
of four disreputablc characters from Easton
and New York, who testified that they had
each bought a glass there that they were
employed by man name Kiter, of Easton-
who, by the way, we are informed was few
years ago arrested at our Fair Grounds for
passing counterfeit money, and whose princi-
pal business, we are further informed, is at
tending such places and Turing the unsophis-
ticated into risking their money upon the
turning up of a card--to go to this place and
and cntrap the proprietor into selling liquor
by the small measure for the purpose of prose-
cutting him. Who employed Kiter did not
APPEAR but it is presumed that some other
vendors of liquor, who desire to monopolize
the trade, are his principal. The characters
of the witnesses We're impeachcd, it being
proven that one of them was just out Of Eas-
ton Jail, while another is now under indict-
ment there for robbery. The court charged
the jury that il they found from the evidence
that the defendant ha5itualiy sold liquor by
the small measure that would constitute q dis
- L