The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1875-04-21

2. Rea, admir-, VS. Quick, ct al. Bullock
Van Fleet. Ms s5$l
3. Easton & Amboy Railroad Company Vi
Garrabrant. Demurrer. Voorhees, & Van
Syckle--Van Fleet.
A. Walker VS. Poulson. Demurrer. Kuhl
Allen.
5. Schenck VS. Kuhl, ex'r. Rule to show
cause. Voorhees, & Van Syckle--Kuhl
9. Naylor VS. Johnson, ct al. Certiorari.
Sergeant- -Skillman.
2. Chamberlin VS. Wilson. Rule to show
cause. Kuhl--
The first case--viz John Peterborough VS.
Clarissa Han, Adm'x of Elijah r. Hall, deed
Twas trial BY proviso. The venue In this
case was laid in Essex county. The case was
noticed for several terms by the plaintiff,
Peterborough. The Court seeing the un-
business Of bringing the defendant and her
witnesses to the Essex Circuit numerous
times and then failing To try the cause grant,
ed change of venue to Hunterdon county,
and trial by proviso by the defendant. The
plaintiff did not appear, and the defendant
proceeded with the trial of the cause offering
lease, executed by Hall in his lifetime to
the plaintiff, in evidence. The amount due
upon the lease was $500, with interest,
amounting in all to the sum of $1,000, for
which verdict was given by the jury.
The second case, William Seals VS. Chas.
Conover, was an action of Ejectment brought
to recover a proportion of ten acre lot The
;,,r., a ,,a,l;t 60, A., ,ias,ks .,.>,, Az
facts in the case, and the case was set down
for argument before the Court upon the law
therein ~ a. III
The third case, James N. Pidcock VS. Jacob
Clotz ct al, is to recover the amount of 81, 100
and interest, due upon checks held by plain
tiff against defendants. The plaintiff proved
the check and rested. From the opening on
the part of defence it appeared that they al
legged the check sued upon was merely
memorandum check given for a loan, and was
subsequently, paid by a certified check given
upon another bank, the defendants neglecting
to take up the memorandum. They also
claimed there was due them from the plaintiff
$1,000, upon contract Of purchase and sale
Of a farm. The first witness on the part of
the defence went upon the stand just prior to
the adjournment of court on Tuesday, and on
Wednesday morning, on account of illness of
juror the trial was adjourned to Monday,
the 10th. s&fKassa N
David Brown, ct al y. John Sproat.s This
was an action of ejectment brough by David
Brown, William H. Davis and Henry Hayes,
as trustees for the use of the Episcopal Church,
to recover the possession of four acres of land
in Lambertville. By deed dated September
a, 1851, John Coryell, who owned tract of
about 1870 acres, conveyed four acres thereof.
to David Brown in trust for the Episcopal
Church of the Diocese of New Jersey for the
purpose of erecting and sustaining a
School or College, If commenced within ten
nomination of Protestants who should raise
sufficient funds to erect school, Subsequently
these four acres were conveyed by David
Brown to Abraham Browning in trust for the
said plaintiffs. These. records together with
some oral testimony showing possession by.
some of the trustees at one time, constituted
the plaintiffs case. The defence offered deed
from George b. Holcombe, Sheriff, to Samuel
Lilly, as receiver, for the farm of 1870 acres, a
deed for the same from Samuel Lilly to Caro-
line Holcombe, and one from Gervas Ely and
wife formerly Caroline Holcombe) to Samuel
B. Hudnit and George A. Allen. In this deed
there was clause stating that the grantors
did not covenant as to title to the four acres
in suit. Hudnit conveyed his interest to Allen,
who conveyed to the Lambertville Land Asso-
citation. and the said ASSOCIATION conveyed to
Sproat six and ninety four hundredths acre
including these four acres, all the said deeds
containing the same clause of exception as
the one from Ely and wife to Hudnitand Aller.
The case was tried before the court without a
jury, and the decision reserved
James d. Mason W Charles w. Kitchen
The plaintiff and one John L. Coryell were
partners as undertakers in Lambertville, and
dissolved the partnership on the. 27th- Of
March 1874. On the 28th of March the. de-
PENDANT, constable Of said city, received a
warrant of distress for rent, against Coryen,
and inquired of Mason as to the dissolution,
Mason informed him that although they had
dissolved, no division of the property had been
made, and that Coryell still owned one half,
and went with the constable to the barn. where
levy was taken upon the interest of Coryell
therein, the property remaining in the posses
sion of Mason. the constable advertised and
sold the interest of Coryell, the purchas r
never claiming the goods, Mason subsequently
claimed that the property was all his at the
time of the levy and sale and brought an ac-
ton of trespass for damageagainstt the officer.
The Chief Justice charged the jury that If
they believed the officer took the levy upon
representations made by the plaintiff, he
could not recover. Verdict, no cause.
William Reed v. John A. Smith. This was
suit on promissory note for $3.50, bearing
date in. 1864, .purporting to be. drawn by
Thomas Apologize, John A. Smith and one
Polhemus. The fact was not disputed that
Smiths name was signed by Applegate, and
not by himself. The plaintiff testified that
in 1879 he desired payment of part of the
principal of the note, and seeing Smith, men,
toned the matter to him, believing then that
the note contained the genuine signature Of
Smith that Smith, without Seeing the note,
or inquirinQ about it, told him AppIe0ate WAS