The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1876-09-13

CoURT.-The September term of court
commenced on Tuesday last, Chief Justice
Beasley presiding The Grand Jury was sent
proceeded to consider the applications for Ii
cense to keep Inns and Saloons. The applica-
ton of John S. Hockenbury, of Delaware
township, Robert Kane, of Raritan, James p.
Larue, of Holland, and Ludlow p Wooden,
of Readington, were granted that of Adolf
plus Weidman, of Lebanon, to keep saloon
was refused, and the applications of Dennis
Sullivan, of Lebanon, and John w. Dilts, of
Delaware, were laid over until Friday morn
| ing.
The first case tried was John r. Chdsey
against John w. Gano and Abraham Skill
man. This was a suit upon two promissory
notes drawn by Gano, to one Holmes or
Bearer, and endorsed by Slx;llman. The de-
PENDANTS claimed that Gano had paid Holmes
the amount of the notes but failed to have
them cancelled, and, that the plaintiff had FORE
closed them after maturity. 1t appears that
the plaintiff procured them Of one Richard
son, who testified that he owned them before
maturity, that if they believed the testimony
of Richardson, and that he received the notes
before maturity, the plaintiff was entitled to
recover, even if the amount had been paid to
Holmes. The jury rendered verdict for the
plintiff for the amount of the notes--$419 SO.
Simeon Merrill v. Simeon r. Dayton and
Ephraim Boice. The plaintiff and defend
ants had entered into an agreement by (which
| a...t; ~, h,,xr box 70. H.,
defendants for them to sell, each to have half
the profit, if any, and each to bear half the
losses, if any. The plaintiff claimed that he
sent hay which cost him $3,672.1S, that by
the statement of the defendant it had been
sold for SO, 46S.53, and they had only returned
him SO, 228 93, which was $341.42 less than he
should have received. Upon application of
the counsel of the defendants the Court nom
suited the plaintiff, because it appeared by his
testimony that the effect of the agreement
was to form partnership, and partnership
difficulties could only be adjusted in the court
of chancery.
Angelina Fl. MCPHERSON v. Michael Shurts,
executor of Peter III. Aller. The plaintiff was
the daughter of Peter H. Aller by his second
wife, In the life time of this second wife he
had borrowed 81, 900 of her for which he gave
her his note, and upon which there has been
some payment endorsed. Shortly after the
death of his wife, the amount then due upon
this 81, 900 note was calculated, the amount
divided, and two notes given by Peter II.
Aller each for the one half one to the plain
tiff, and one to her sister. Upon the note
thus given the suit was brought. The de-
PENDANT insisted that the note was without
consideration, and that Peter Fl. Aller was in
competent to act by reason of mental inca
pacity, and that fraud was practiced in pro-
curing the note. The Court stated that under
the law, upon the death of the wife Peter III !.
Aller took her personal property, and among
other things this 81 900 note, and that in his
opinion, the note of the plaintiff having been
given for part of that note, there was failure
of consideration, and the plaintiff could not
recover. He directed a verdict to be rendered
for the plaintiff, subject to reversal by the
court upon argument.
Mahlon Walker v. Israel Poulson. In
March, 1871, the defendant gave the plaintiff
his note, payable April LIST, 1872, for $50
the purchase price of horse. In September
1871, the plsintif became'insane and was con-
fined in the asylum, and his papers came to