The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1877-12-19

COURT PPoCEEpiEGs After the close of
the trial Of Won Eida, on Tuesday of last
week, the following business was transact-
ed during the balance of tho week
The Union National Bank Of FrencLtown
y. William ]. Poulson and Israel Poulson, adj
ninistrat ors Of Samuel B. Hudnit, deceased.
This was an activn upon three proniissory
nptes made by Huduit in his life time, and
discounted BY the Bank, aud upon which var
sious payments had Ueen made by tie admins
. traitors. There was no defence, and Judgment
was rendered tho plaintiff for the amount duo
upon the notes.
John Ramsey v. William Mogan ct all
This was asuit upon a note dated April 2,
de77, made by one William Moyan, by which
Tho. promised TO pay, two nIonths after date,
10 the order of Fisher & Preston, at the Flsm-
ingtop National Bank, $1,000 with interest:
&C. r. Fisher . and ~. l.. Preston" The
suit was brought to recover the amount of the
note from Caleb F. Fisher, and ho was the
only person who interposed des,nee. His
defence was that the note was fraudulent. and
that Ramsey participated In the fraud or had
notice of it. The history of the note and en-
dorsemenr was this On tho 31st day OF
March Last, Preston and one Peirine, having
learned that Fisher was the owner Of o patent
Preston could and would sell the patent for
him for half the amount Of sales, written
agfceinent was entered into, by which Pres
ton was, to sell the patent and reudcr to Fish
seg haIfthe proceeds, and Incorporated therein
was alclause authorizing Preston to sign the
name of Fisher s. Preaton in order to convert
any notes that might DO TAKEN into money
Armed with this agreement, Preston makes
q pretended sale to Mngan, perfectly worth
less fellow, living In the city of New York,
and on the 3rd of April appears in Fleming
ton with Mogan's note for ! 600, and applies
to Ramsey to buy 1t. Ramsey has been In
formed by Perrine that man would bring
some paper some days previous From this
point tho statements of the parties were con-
fiicting. Ramsey's statement was that he
was in doubt as to the right OF Preston, I'M
der the agreement, to endorse the note with
the name of Fisher & Preston, and thereby
render Fisher liable. and In consequences went
with Preston to sec Fisher, stating to him
that he was about to purchase the note, but
would not do 50 unlcss no Fisher would say
1t was all right and put bis name upon 1t hiT-
self; that Fisher said 1t was all right, and en-
dorsed it III Ills presence that on the way
buck from Fishers he (Ramsey) asked Pros
ton how he got Fisher to sign such contract,
and Preston said If he had gone there with
gold dollars he would not have signed it, but
he had worthless patent he wanted to get
rid of lie purchased the note for 5000, at
ter they got back from Fishers. Fisher de-
MED Rarnsey's statement as to informing him
that he wanted to buy the note, or asking
him If ii was all right. he said the way lie
came to endorse the note was. Preston brought
tho note in auit and two others purporting
To be signed by onB Joseph Hart, for $500
each. and said lie had sold the patent for $2,-
600 and had come to divide the sales. Pres
ton assured him that the makers Of both notes
were good, Mogrn being worth $4,000. It
was agreed that Preston should have the $1,-
QUO note, and he (Fisher) the two for $500
each, and then Preston and Ramsey stated
that the proper way to make division would
be for Fisher to sign Preston's note and Pros
ion Fishers, and 1t was done. Fisher also
testified that tho first he knew that Ramsey
l,ad the note, or contemplated buying II, was
ON the nth Of April, when Ramsey told him,
and in that conversation said to him he WAS
afraid he (Fisher) had got into trouble from
something Preston let drop on the way back
from Fishers. Ramsey denied this CONVEX
satiOn.
The Chief Justice, in charging the jury,
stated that in his opinion there was nothing
said or done by Ramsey. In the conversation
at Fishers which would show that Ramsey
had knowledge Of fraud, but that Il appeared
from his own testimony that on the way back,
and before the purchase was made, he was in
formed by Preston that the note was given
for q worthless patent, and II 30 was without
consideration and void a. against the maker,
and 1t was for the jury to determine whether
that, in connection with the conversation held
with Fisher, II they believed Fishers version
of IL, was sufficient notice to Ramsey Of the
fraud Verdict, no cause
John ". +. Wyckof v. Executors of An
drew Suydam. This was an action upon a
book account. The defence was that there
were some illegal charges upon the note books,
and note made by Wyckoh to Suydsm for
$500, was offered as q set off, II appeared
that Suydam was in the habit Of loaning Wy
kotf his name, and that he would give him
his note which Wyckof would have cashed,
giving suydam like note This note was
marked "duplicatc," aud It Was shown that
note made by Suydam to Wyckof, of the
same date, and for the Same amount was paid
by Wyckoff, and the presumption was that
this nots was the counterpart Of that, and
should have been taken up. The first charge
was ssBalancs On. settlement, e6Ai. 49," and In
tcrest had been charged upon the balance each
year. Payments had been made by the ex-
ccutors, and IL these itemss were stricken out
the plaintiff would have been nver.paid.
The Chief Justice directed the jury tnat ~
matter of law they must strike ous the item
of $64i.22 I; that it was an illegal and I'M proper
charge, and If the law would permit It no
man would be safe, for ell the merchant neeo
do would be to charge q balance ON settle
ment, and IL the man died there could be no
investigation of the matter, and no escape
from totally trumped up charge. He also
directed the jury to strike out the items of
interest; that interest could not be charged
during the continuance Of . running account
unless it was proven that It was the contract,
or unless bills were presented for payment
Verdict no cause
Joseph p. Vert ct a., v. Geo. Reinart. III .
plaintiff furnished the lumber for = building
eyected by defendants son on property Of de-
PENDANT, and claimed that the defendant prom
ised before the lumber was bought, that he
would either make q deed for the property to
The son or pay the bill. The defendant tssti-
fled that he made no such promise did not
know Of the building until lit was commenced,
and nothingwas ever said to him about itby
the plaintiff until long afterward, whom he
told them he would not pay tho bill, but they
could remoss The building. Verdict for plain
tiff for amount Of account.
Tho Grand Jury found eighteen bills Of in
dictinent. -
On Friday afternoon court was adjourned
TO Wednesday OF this week.