The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1876-04-19

Mr.. Barron offered an ordinance entitled
/" An Ordinance 10 rereal the second section
OF an ordinance entitled An ordinance to
regulate the police, &c.
On motion the title Of the. ordinance was
taken for its first reading.
While Mr.. Ely was Offering supplement
to the ordinance respecting the police, Mr..
Martiuden moved to adjourn to Monday
evening, which motion was carried.
CouRT.-T The April term of the Hunterdon
County Courts commenced on Tuesday of last
week, Chief Justice Beasley presiding, with
Associate Judges Van Fleet, Hocombc and
Smith. The attendance was large. The first
business transacted was the calling and swear
ing in Of the Grand Jury, all of whom were
present except one The Chief Justice said
that as there was nothing special to come be-
fore them, he would give them no charge,
and they Immediately retired to their room
The following tavern licenses were granted;
/ Samuel Clark, New Germantown John
| w. Lowe, Lebanon Jacob X. Wilson, Ser
geantsville Mark Devlin, High Bridge A.
w. Baldwin, Baptsttown William H. Force,
Jr., Pennington; James Smith, New Hamp-
| ton; William G. Mettler, Little York Ed
ward Humphrey, Glen Gardener William G !.
Jones, Bloomsbury Cornelius Y. Hall, Mid
vale; Lewenyn r. Conner Union township
Joseph Bonnell, White Hall Asa Ritten-
house, Milford Skidmore Wright, Quaker
town; George w. Shordy, Croton Mary A.
Smith, Valley Station; Jacob r. Scomp,
Readington township Theodore J. Young,
Ringoes Nicholas N. Boeman, Annandale
J. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
The following applicants were rejected
Cornclia Van Fleet, Centrevile Jona-
than Higgins, Wertsville Matthias Brink,
Kingwood; A. II. Hoagland, Readngton
William Bud, West Amwell G. Bowlby,
Tewksbury.
The application of Nancy Emery was laid
over.
The Grand Jurors were discharged on Fri
doy, having found twenty-four bills of in
dictment
! The following cases have been tried up to
the close Of the past week.
Samuel Rinehart Joseph Welt, admins
TRAITOR of Stephen Yard, deceased. The
facts in this case were agreed upon by the
parties, and quietly and privately stated to
the Court and will be decided by the Court.
John Donahoe o. j. Sutphin ct. al This
was an action upon promissory note for 5000
given in purchase of two horses. The de-
fence was partial failure of consideration, it
being alleged that the horses were warranted
but turned out nearly worthless. Verdict for
plaintiff, $148.
John A. Smith, o. Theodore Polhemus. A
few terms ago one Reed sued John A. Smith,
the present plaintiff, upon joint and several
promissory note purporting to have been
given by Thomas Apologize, John A. Smith
and Theodore Polhemus.s In the trial of that
cause Smith testified that he had never signed
the note but the jury gave verdict against
! him for the full amount. He then sued Pol
hemns for contribution, that is, for one half
the amount due on the note at the time he
paid it, alleging that Applegate was the prin-
i cipal and he and Polhemus we're joint sureties.
! Smith testified that he had never signed the
note, whereupon the Court stated that u or
der to maintain the suit for contribution il
must appear that the plaintiff was joint
surety I; that the laintif having himself testi-
fled that this was not the case, he would be
compelled to non-suit him. Plaintiff nonsut-
cd.
Isaac Larue d. William S. White The de-
PENDANT, as Constable. under two executions
in his hands against John Larue a brother
of the plaintiff, levied upon and sold goods
claimed by the plaintiff. Before the sale the
plaintiff repevined the goods, the Constable
sut WIS mo, the rer,lor;n TIE ,,.ods h ,nS
formerly been John I,arue's and Isaac claim
! ed them bv virtue of a sale TO him n short
time before the lew. The defendant conten.
ded that ths sale was fraudulent. for the mr..
nose Of defeating his credtors. Verdict fo,
plaint;ff
p' alexander II. Holcoahe . Abel Kerr Son
and Abel Kerr. Ir. This was an action mon
a note nnrnortino IT'D sba drawn Nv the two
Kerrs for $a5n naJSable to A W BROWN or
bearer. The defeniantss insisted that the
note was foroery !. HAT Brown rave them q
deed for some territory for natent sickle
har and thew rave him their note for sa5(I 90
NRroyn Giving them a written ! agreement RI Of
tha note was not To he Maid untiI thew had re.
allied sntficient from the sale of the patant To
nav the note after dednctino all their exnen-
SEES that thew raised the Question whether.
the agreement being separate from the note.
Brown could dispose Of II to n third marty