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

-.
the hands az William Van Mast overseer Of
the moor of the township of Raritan. When.
or lust before the note came due. Il was pre-
sented to the defendant bv Van Nest and maid.
The suit was to recover the amount Of the
note The defendant claimed that tbe over.
seer had the RIGHT TO collect the note that -
was navahle 70 bearer. and therefore navmant
to any nersou bayino il in nossessiop released
the maker; and that subsequently 60 the col
lection the plaintiff settled with Van Nest ae-
cepting a part Of the money and aereeinp to
look to lifflffor the balance after his expenses
were deducfea Tho nla;nt;af ;ns;etad t,,o+
the note was navable "a order and not beare,
amp that there was no ratification The case
was tried by the Court and decision reserved
John A. Large V. Peter Ditmars. This was
a suit upon a promissory note for $500, given
by the defendant to the plaintiff. Tho parties
were partners in the lumber business at White
House, and the plaintiff claimed that the note
was given in part payment of an indebtedness
from defendant to him. The defendant con.
tended that the note was merely given for ac-
commodation, without consideration, and that
at the time of She making he was not indebt-
ed to the plaintiff. Subsequently the partner
ship was dissolved, and it appeared that a
suit in chancery is pending in which Lar &c
claims there is due him from Ditmars about
$4,000 and Dtmars claims there is due him
from Large about "a, 900. The Chief Justice
instructed the jury that tho only question was
what the understanding of the defendant was
when he gave the note. If they believed his
testimony that he merely loaned his name no
mattor what the plaintiffs intention or belief
was, there could be no recovery. Verdict for
defendant.
Moses K. Everitt and Octayius p. Cham
berlin WI ". d. Green In 1871 a man re-
presenting himself as the agent of one Dem
crest, applied to the defendant to become
agent for the sale Of patent pruning shears,
and the defendant signed what he supposed
to be an agreement that he would sell the
shears within certain territory. and render a
statement to Demorest once a wear and paw
him twenty per cent. of the profits. Accord
ing to the defendants testimony. the very
next daV. thinking there MIGHT be something
wrong about the matter, lie commenced to
make inquiries of yarious persons. among
them Mr.. Chamberlin. whether any paper
with his signature had been seen by them :
that Chamberlin said he had no such paper.
and was then informed by the plaintiff that a
fraud had been practiccd upon him in some
way. Subsequently he discovered that Cham
berlin had what purported to be his nromis.
sorry note for 500. the subject matter Of the
suit. Chamberlin denied that he told Green
he did not have the paper, but testified that
he told him he had but refused to let him
to see It, when he showed him the note in
suit. The Court stated to the jury that there
was no doubt the note was procured by fraud.
but if the plaintiffs.purchased It in good faith.
and without notice of the fraud. and II had
been signed by the defendant in it's present
form. the plaintiffs would be entitled to re-
cover what thev maid for IT, IF tho inrv waro
Of opinion that the printed form of the note
was tbe bottom of an aoreepent sucb no tba