The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1875-09-15


will be materially lessened. 1t is best for all
concerned that this kind of fight be refrain
ed from.
CoURT.-In his charge to the Grand Jury
at the opening of the September term of
Court ON Tuesday last, the Chief Justice
stated that he had received letter informing
him that crime of a grave character had
been attempted to be committed in the coun-
| ty, and that it was supposed the frienls of
the criminal would endeavor to bring such in
| fluences to bear upon the jury as to prevent
an indictment. He charged them that under
their oaths they were bound to hear and fairly
consider every matter brought before them,
and if from the testimony it appeared that a
crime had probably been committed, to SO find,
in order that the fact might be fairly tried and
justice done ; that the jury had right to
consider anything they heard outside the
testimony given in the jury room, and that if
any person approached them with intent to
influence them, they should report such per-
son to the Court. The jury was then sent
out and the list of causes called.
W
Samuel Klotz. This was double suit. The
plaintiff claimed of the defendants the amount
due on a check dated April 8, 1872, drawn by
the defendants as j. s. S. Klotz, on the
Merchants and Manufacturers Bank of New
ark, for $1100. The defendants claimed that
they had paid the check, and that the plaintiff
was indebted to them in the sum of $1,000, the
i Al Il. r.
them to plaintiff. With reference to the
check, it appeared that the defendants were
in the habit of borrowing checks of the
plaintiff and giving him their checks dated
ahead. The defendants claim that on the 28th
| of March the plaintiff loaned them two checks,
one for $500 and the other for $780, and the
check sued upon was given by them upon a
bank in which they had no account, merely as
memorandum of the indebtedness, and that
on the sth day of April, the day the check was
due, they sent the plaintiff a certified check
for $1105, in payment thereof, but neglected
to take up the memorandum check, and that
they never heard of the check afterwards un-
til they threatened to sue the plaintiff, wfrcn
he brought this suit upon it. This statement
the plaintiff denied in part. He admitted that
the memorandum check was given for the two
checks of April 9Th, but said the alleged certi-
! fed check of April 9Th, exhibited by the de-
PENDANTS, was given him on the 9th of March,
in payment of two other checks for $500 and
5000 respectively, loaned them by him on that
day, and that he or his agent had their check
| certified when it became due. In support of
this statement the plaintiff produced the
cashier of the Second National Bank of Jersey
City, who testified that the check the defend
ants claimed paid the memorandum check,
was in his Bank on the 9th of Marol-the day
before the memorandum check was given.
Samuel Klotz, who testified as to the sending
of the certified check of April Sth, subse-
quently corrected himself, stating he was
mistaken as to the fact of sending that par
ticular check, sbut that while it was in the
hands of the plaintiff on the 27th of March, it
paid the check sued upon, that also having
been drawn at that time and post dated. A
large number of checks were exhibited on both
sides, and the books Of two banks offered in
evidence, the cashiers being first examined.
With regard to the claim of the defendants
against the plaintiff, the following facts APP
peared The defendants sold the plaintiff a
farm in Readington township, upon which
John Ramsey held mortgage for $1,000, and
in payment of the mortgage note was drawn
by J. & s. Klotz to the order of Pidcock, en-
dorsed by him and delivered to Ramsey
Suit was subsequently brought upon the note
and it was paid by the defendants. The
defendants claimed that the note repre-
them from the plaintiff for the farm, and
should have been paid by him, and was drawn
in the manner it was at his request, with the
understanding that he would take care of it
at maturity. The plaintiff contended that he
agreed to and did pay the whole of the pur-
chase money for the farm in assigning mort
gage and transferring notes to the defendants,
and that the Ramsey mortgage was to be and
was paid by the defendants by their note
which he endorsed. In this connection con-
siderable testimony was given as to the owner
ship of what was called the Bliss 81 Curry
check, the plaintiff claiming that he passed it
to the defendants as part of the consideration
of the farm, and the defen dants contending
that they received it simply for collection,
and were to return II to the plaintiff if uncol-
lectable. The President of Newark Bank
testified that the plaintiff remarked to him,
subsequently, to the whole transaction, that
he supposed he owed the defendants some-
thing in equity, but he did not show whether
he did in law, and another witness said that
in the Fall of 1872, when the firm of j. & S.
Klotz failed, Pidcock told him he lost moth
ing by them.
The trial of this case occupied from Tues
day morning until Saturday afternoon. On
account of the illness of son of one of the
iurnrs. the Jury was NOT charoed until xester-