The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1878-09-11


with honli ,ide, and it would be their duty to
give tile matter their careful consderat ton,
and examine with reference, under the law,
which was very clear to the degree of the
crime. If they needed any instructions they
could come in court at any time, and he would
explain the law to them
The following applications for license were
granted
]. S. Hockenbury, Delaware w. P Wood
en-, Readington Robert Kane, Raritan ;
George Sinclair, Alexandria.
The following applications were laid over
until Friday
Dennis Sullivan, William Bowlby and Will
liam A. Loudenbcrger, Lebanon; John w.
DIS Delawaie--Saloon.
The first case moved for trial, and in which
a jurv was impanneled, was Jacob johnson v.
Wilson Applegate, This was an action for
assault upon the wife of the plaintiff, the as
sauli consisting of alleged criminal intercourse
with ber The first witness called was the
wife of the plaintiff. who was excluded under
the statute and the plaintiff submitted to
nonsait
John Ramsey v. Nathan Rogers ct al. This
was an action upon note for $44O mace py
Nathan Rogers to the order of N. Rodgers d
Son and Henry X. Ramsey. The defence was
that it was merely an accommodation note,
Henry K Ramsey having borrowed the names
of Nathan Rogers and N. Rogers u Son, and.
that John Ramsey, the plaintiff, having taken
tie note after maturity, the defendants were
entitled to the same defence as though the
suit had been brought in the name OF Henry
X. Ramsey. The note in suit grew out OF
transaction of the 10th of April, 1877, when
note of Rogers & Son for $780, endorsed by
II. K Ramsey, was discounted, Ramsey re-
ceiving the proceeds. When that note came
due there was a dispute between Ramsey and
Rogers as to liability, Rogers claiming that
they had given the note to Ramsey merely as
accommodation paper, and Ramsey insisting
that at the time of its making they owed him
$500, and they were liable for the one-half.
Ramsey paid the one-half the note was re-
newed for $400, and when that came due suit
WAS brought upon it, The note in suit was
given for $440, to take up the $500 note and
cover costs. 1t was admitted that Ramsey
and Rogers had been in the habit of loaning
each other their names on accommodation pa
per. The question was as to the liability OF
the parties upon the $500 note, each evidently
thinking he was right in his recollection about
the matter. Verdict for defendants.
John p. Brothers ct al. v. The Union
County Manufacturing Company. This was
an action upon an account for spokes sold by
the plaintiffs to the defendants. There Was
no defence, and verdict Was rendered the
plaintiffs for 1854 AZ.
Executors of Dikeman v. Peter Heath.
Dikeman sold one Stevenson wagon under
written contract that the wagon should re-
main the property of Dikeman until it was
paid for. The wagon came into the possession
of one Taylor-how, did not appear-and he
sold it to the defendant. Notice was served
on the defendant to deliver the wagon to the
plaintiff, and upon refusal suit was brought.
The evidence was that Heath knew the terms
of the contract under which the wagon was
purchased by Stevenson. Verdict for plain
till, 1892.
William Bowlby v. John Skilman ct all
This was an action upon note for $500, paya-
BILE at the Easton Bank, made by John Skill
man d Bro, to the order of Abraham Skill
man, and endorsed by Abraham Skillman and
the plaintiff This note was given in renewal
Of another note, the first note being for 81 900
made and endorsed by the same parties. This
first was taken by Abraham Skillman and
John Skilman to WEIGH d Co., at Easton, to
whom Abraham Skillman was indebted in the
sum of $544, 81, and this amount was taken
out and the balance paid. The plaintiffs
statement as to the signing of the first note
was, that Abraham Skillman told him his son,
John Slillman, wanted to see him in his store
at junction that he went in the store to-
gether with Abraham Skillman, when John
told him they wanted him to endorse note
for them for $1,000 that they had some
S., 600 on book, and when the Railroad hands
lect large amount that he consented to
endorse the note when it was drawn and
signed by John Skilman & Bro, endorsed by
Abraham Skiman, and then by him. The
firm of John Skillman d Bro, consisted of
John Skillman and Stewart Skillman, and the
defence was by Stewart Skillman, he alleging
that the note was not made for firm purposes,
but was for the accommodation of his father,
Abraham Skiman, and was made without
m N
and Abraham Skillman testified that the note
was endorsed by Bowlby at the request of
Abraham Skiman and as security for him !;
that they distinctly informed Bowlby at the
time that it was the Indebtedness of Abraham
Skillman and not the firm that the note was
signed by the firm at the request of Bowlby,
and that Stewart Skillman knew nothing
about it. Stewart is now in Texas. Verdict
for plaintiff, $S46,53
Jonas Gotual ct al, v. Henry G. Diey-
The plaintiffs were engaged in the Wholesale
notion business i'll Lambertville and sued the
defendant upon book account for goods
bought The defence was that the plaintiff
had agreed to allow against the account
claim the defendant had against one Mickey,
who was in the employ of the plaintiffs. Yer
diet for defendant.
William V. Case ct al, v. M. X. Everitt,
Receiver of the Stockton Paper Ware Manu-
on lien claim. The plaintiffs had an account
against the Company which was settled by
note for some $500, and the books balanced
Subsequently other items were purchased to
the amount of $119.19, and an order for ware
given 10y the Company for SOB, which was
applied upon the account of $119.19. When
tie $500 note came due it was protested, and
the plaintiff filed lien for the items embrace
ed in the account for which it was given, the
account for $ll9.19 not being lenable. The
question was whether the SOB was properly
applied, or whether it should have been APP
piled 10 the general account in satisfaction of
so much of the first items in the lien-caim
The case was tried by the Court, and the de-
eisioa reserved.
Stephen V. Hill v. the Stockton Paper Ware
Manufacturing Compauy.-This case was
similar to the one Immediately preceding, ex-
cept that in this case the credit was a general
one for 5000 and it was insisted that $3.50 of
il should go to pay the last bill charged, which
was not lienable. Decision reserved.
William T. Emery v. Mary S. Volk.- This
was suit upon a note made by the defendant
and Thomas j. NoIk, her husband Tie
plaintiff had sold the husband bill of lum.
her, which was used in a building on the farm
Of the wife. The defendant gave her note to