The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1876-04-26
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

George Dougherty VS.. Jeremiah Lawless.
This was a suit brought on a writ of attach
ment. 1t appeared that on the first day of
April, 1874, George Doughtery worked in a
stone quarry near Centre Bridge, Pa, for the
defendant, as day laborer, and worked so
until about the first Of June of the same year,
when they entered into contract as follows
Dougherty was to pay Lawless a certain rent
for the quarry and tools used in quar-
rying stone, and was to get out stone and ship
them to Philadelphia, for which, when de-
livered in that city, he was to receive 81 80
per ton of said Lawless. After having ship
ped $50 tons of stone the defendant told him
to stop shipping them, but he could continue
quarrying and pile them on the wharf Lear
the quarry: This he did until he had several
hundred tons, and on the defendant refusing
to pay him, and he being nonresident, he
took out writ of attachment on money in
the hands of one Case, due the defendant.
The defendant claimed sundry credits, which
were principally allowed ; but he also claimed
that he was to pay no more for the stone than
he received. This lie failed to Provo, and the
jury returned verdict for the plaintiff for
$177.43. For plaintiff, E. p. Conkling and
j. T. Bird ; for defendant, L. II. Sergeant
and II. s. Kuhl.
David B. Sebold vs William Van Marter.
At public sale made by the defendant, in
March, 1878, the plaintiff purchased mare,
which he claims was warranted by Van Marter
to be sound aud all right in every way, ex-
cepting that she was little lame from strain
she had received a few days before, from
which she would soon reeover, but that she
had been lame for some time from founder,
and that Van Marter knew it at the time of
sale. Van Marter claimed that the animal
was not warranted, bnt was sold just as she
was He said that he told Sebold she would
not suit him for his use, and that any one
who bought her did SO at bis own risk. Yer
dict for plaintiff for $l1l.10. G. A. Skill
man and J. N. Voorhees, for plaintiff; J. A.
Bullock for defendant.
Lambert Humphrey vs. Jonas Thatcher.
Suit brought to recover amount due on a
promissory note. The plaintiff proved the
signature, and the Judge charged the jury in
his favor. Verdict for plaintiff for $169.15, 1t
DciuS tuo dtHOuut VI Lie ucte huu INTEREST 10
date.
Cornelius Arnett vs. Frederick Kimmel.
Of qls. The slit wal brought recover the
amount due the plaintiff for work done in re-
pairing building and building an oven on
contract for $500. Arnett swofe that the
contract was as alleged, and that he went to
see Mrs Kimmel about it in January, 1873,
and finished the work by the first Of April.
The jury found that the husband made the
contract, and rendered verdict for $a62, so.
Charles johnson v. Hugh B. Ely. In 1855
one Romine gave his note to Charity Phillips
for $18S, and the defendent signed it on the
back as surety" The plaintiff, as distribu-
tive legatee or heir of Mrs. Phillips, took the
note as part of his distributive share and
brought suit against the defendant. The de-
PENDANT claimed that he had made no pay
ment upon the note, ali the payments endor-
sed having been made by RomiDe and from
the character in which he had signed the note
he could not be held to be joint maker, and
therefore the payments by Romine would not
keep the note aiivc as against'him for longer