The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1875-04-28

continued on MONDAY. The SICK juror in the
case of Pidcock v. Klotz not appearing the
court announced that the case would be called
as though nothing had been done, and the
plaintiff declined to move his case.
John Hoffman v. Gardner r. johnson. The
plaintiff bought the farm owned by the father
of the defendant in his life time, and gave
mortgage thereon conditioned for the pay
ment of the interest of $4,000, to Uranna
Johnson {mother of the defendant) during her
life, and at her death, the payment of So, 600
of the principal to George johnson, and the
other So, 900 to the defendant. Subsequently
the defendant bought tho farm of the plaintiff,
and by the terms of the deed, assumed the
payment of said mortgage. Upon the death
Uranna, her administrators appraised four
months and five days interest as due upon the
bond given by Hoffman to her. and Hoffman
paid it, as he alleged, by the direction of tho
defendant. This the defendant denied, as
sorting that he told the plaintiff he had paid
his mother the full amount of interest, and
nothing remained due upon the bond. A
great disparity existed in the testimony.
Robert Opdyke, witness on the part of the
plaintiff, detailed a conversation between
plaintiff and defendant as occurring in his
presence and was corroborated by the plain
tiff, while the defendantsand one of his wit
nesses testified that Opdyke was not present
at the conversation. The plaintiff aud de-
PENDANT had several conversations upon the
subject, and in scarcely one instance did they
agree as to what was said Verdict for plain
tiff, $175.
Annie Bowden v. Patrick G. Hunt The
defendant caused an attachment to be issued
against Michael Bowden the husband of the
plaintiff, for rent. under which, as was alleged,
the officer attached and sold the wifes goods.
Hunt bought them and they were repleyied.
The plaintiff testified that the goods were
hers, and there being no defence verdict was
rendered for the plaintiff.
Annie Bowden v. Charles w. Kitchen.
Kitchen was the constable who sold the goods
repeyied, as mentioned in the above suit and
this was an action of trespass for damages.
Verdict for plaintiff $43.
Peter S. Robertson v. Edward III. Holcombe.
The Common Council of Lambertville, year
ago, passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale
of liquor in any quantity in that city. Hol-
combe entered complaint against Robertson
for a violation of this ordinances and upon the
trial Robertson was acquitted. This action
was brought for damages for false imprison-
ment. The plaintiff offered the record of the
trial. and rested, whereupon the court stated
he had failed to make a case, and ordered
nonsuit.
John P Rittenhouse v. George S. OsmuD.
This was an action of replevin. Osmun, as
constable, levied upon and took, under an exc
cution against John Risler, goods which Rit-
tenhouse alleged he held by virtue of prior
levy. The rights of the parties depending up
on the validity of the sheriff levy. A verdict
was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to be
set aside if the court decided the levy invalid.
David N. Force William Lance ct al.
This was an action upon promissory note.
No defence was made and the plaintiff re-
ceived a verdict for $206S2
Henry f. Field Michael M. Field At
tachment. No defence. Verdict for plain
tiff.
Van Doren & Son v. G. G. Rogers Action
upon note. No defence. Verdict 1921. So
Aaron b. Francis v. Gideon Warne. The
defendant sold a horse to the plaintiff, war
ranting it in writing, to be sound in limb and
not cribber. The horse subsequently, died,
but it was alleged that Immediately after the
sale 1t was lame and also cribbed. Verdict
for plaintiff $40.
William w. Bloom v. Nicholas N. William
son. Bloom sold Williamson sleigh, and il
order to secure the purchase money, took
bill of sale of the sleigh and certain red COW,
and this action of replevin was brought to Sc
cure the possession OF the sleigh and COW.
The defendant claimed that at the time of the
giving of the bill of sale the COW was not his
but his wife's. Bloom, however, testified
that afterwards lie asked the wife if she
claimed the COW, and she said it was his
Blooms under the bill Of sale. Verdict for
plaintiff. B
Winfield Schomp v. John V. Hall. Hall
went security upon note for 5000, given by
Schomp, and afterwards paid it and took
clattle mertgag5 to secured himself. Subse
quently the property contained i'll the mort
gage was put in the possession of Hall for him
to dispose of and pay himself out of the pro-
ceeds, the balance, if any to be paid TO Schomp.
Schomp claimed that from statements made,
to him by Hall and others, there was about
5000 balance due him, while Hall commended
that he did not receive, from the sale of the
goods sufficient to pay his claim, and that
there was still due to him some $75. Verdict
for plaintiff $17.58.
This completed the civil list and the trial
of indictments was proceeded with.
The State " John Sutton Indictment for
stealing eight sheep skins, the property of one
Vescelius. 1t was proved that the defendant
sold the skins, and being unable to account
for their possession he was found guilty and
sentenced to 30 days in County Jail and 81
fine.
The state v. Loran Brewster. Indictment
for malicious mischief in breaking windows
in cars of Pennsylvania Railroad Company
defacing wood work and destroying cushions.
Verdict guilty.
The state v. Loran Brewster. Indictment
for larceny in stealing iron Of Railroad Com
pany The evidence was that the defendant
was seen carrying bar of iron, and upon see
ing some of the employees, he dropped it and
went away Verdict not guilty.
The State v. Samuel r. Reigel. This was
an Indictment for arson, in burning the dis
tillery at Frenchtown in November last The
testimony on the part of the State was briefly
this Alexander Ruth heard Reigel and
another man leaving the Pennsylvania side of
the river above the bridge 10 Reigel's boat
about II o'clock, and heard the two talking
that this would be the best nights work they
had ever done. William Weaver, saw tracks
leading from the river where Reigeps boat
was moored in the morning, made by his
(Weaver's) rubber boots, which he had loaned
Reigel some time before Reigel had also told
him that he did not strike the match that
burned the distillery, but he knew who did,
and another time asked him this question :
"If Abe Fluck should hire some one to burn
the distillery and that person should hire me-,
what would they do with me.os Joseph Rue,
Philadelphia detectives testified as to the
arrest of Rebel that he found Reirel's boots.