The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1874-04-22

| teeth several times with success But he does
not think it an operation worth Dragging
about.
CoURT PRocEEDINcs.-Wh we went to
press last week, the case Of the ,Frepchtown
Foundry and Machine Co. ys. Samuel Roc.sa-
fellar, was.on trial. The defendant, itlwill IL
remembered, had withheld $l0o Of money
drawn for the Company by him as Freehold
er, ON the claim that the length of the bridge
| for which the order was drawn, was not
measured properly. The Court Instructed
the jury thar, as the defendant had received
! the order for o special purpose, it was lis
duty to perform and fulfil that mission and
that he, by reason Of his former connection
! with the order, stood in no better or different
relation than would any other person to whom
it might have been entrusted. Verdict for
Plaintiff for the 800 and interest.
Tho Firnchtown Foundry and Machine
| Go. VS.. Andrew R9lerson. This was an action
to recover the amount the defendant had sub
scribcd towards the Foundry, and agreed to
take in stock. The plaintiff was non-suilcd
>'COs sc II. A1itCu W.. y u +iiNS Au, cT. llG
defendant as Collector of the township of
Kingwood. sold, rof the Payment Of taxes as
sessed against plaintiffs farq,, the rails and
timber orssthc farm sandAthis w;ts.aar action IF
| repeyin. braaglt-to recover tler possession.
The case was tried bcforcltlfe lCoart without
jury, and the argument uponthc legal point
involved, postponed.
Rittenhousc vs.. Rittenhousc. This was an
Faction brought by Dewitt C. Ritenhouse
against. tic admin stlatais 1 ak AndsrSS ID!
Rittenhousc, deceased, upon two promissory
4 notes and an, aeceunt The defendants adj
j mttetl part Of the clain and filed 4 set OF to
an amount greater than plaintiffs claim.
Verdict for defendants Sl3i5G.
Administrators Of Elisha Warforl, tlecca-
sed, VS.. Conrad II. Tunison. This was an
| action of repevin. No defence was made
4 and the verdict was for plaintiff
Wm. Fulpcr VS.. Ralph V. Smith. This was
an action brought to recover damages for the
obstruction Of IN alleged drirt-way over lands
Of the defendant. The plaintiff had been ac-
| obey the defendants order to discontinue It's
nse, the defendant felled II tree across the
road. No special damage was alleged, and
the whole question was as to The right Of the
plaintiff over defendants lands. This it was
lsppposed, depended on the length of time the
[road had been used by the plaintiff and his
grantors, and -,spea ,thi point Tthe testimony
was conflicting: Seycsrl Ssncnas ea fsen 60 to
j 20 years, testified that the road had existed
where'ft now As, ever siiicc they were boys -
While on the other hand the man who mainly
kbut the road, testified that it was, put there
about 81 years Ago. Tie Court however, M
s.ructcd the jury that under the admitted
facts the question as to the length of time the
road had existed was uninportant that the
evidence showed that if the road had existed
for great length oftime, it was for the bene-
tit and use Of the owner of the farms Of both
Il tho plaintiff and defend mt, which were then
together, and owned by one person; that the
n fact of a person using a way over his own
: land, would not crtaie IL right Of way that
would accrue to future owners of a portion of
the premises and that although since the
death of the owner of both tracts, the farm
owned by the plaintiff was sold, and the road
: II had been used by the purchaser and his as
signs for more than twenty years, yet the de-
.lendants farm having, until within few
years past, been in the possession Of Il widow.
as life tenant, and moi in the possession Of the
owners, thel'o could have ibeefino adverse us
!, or Of the road for a sufficient time to create q
right of wayiu the plaina iifae Ehe Chief JUS
tice therefore enlarged sjnuy 10 renderss,
verdict for the aefsAaans nAftsf ,feliberatiug
for short time, in thefaee Of this direct
charge, the jury rendered q verdict for the
plaintiff fheS Ctief Justice then requested
: them to return and reconsider, stating that by
their verdictSthes would greatly prejudice the
l plaintiff; that il they adhered t" their decis-
ion lie would be compelled to set The verdict
aside, when the case would have to be rstrietl
> and if a similar verdict WAS rendered, that
would also be set aside and SO on infnituus.
a lie jury again @eathut, = and lin a few min
utes returned, adbcripg 70 their verdict &
The plaintiif. and tie Court lad entered rul,
setting it aside cmocrct.a, ! 49, .s.,~,...