The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1878-09-18

tended that the assessment was illegal, and if
it should be found that it had not been paid,
the policy was not forfeited. The Court in
structed the jury to find special verdict up
on the two points, were the goods the prop
erty of the plaintiff" and twas the assess
ment of October paid" reserving the other
point to be decided by the Court. The jury
found for the plaintiff on both points.
Christiana Weir v. Peter w. Melick, execu-
tor of Asa L Hunt This was suit upon a
promissory note made by IRA L. Hunt to the
order of John ]. Pegg, for $500, dated JAN a,
1876, payable one day after date. The note
did not pass to the plaintiff until after it was
due, and therefore was subject to the same
defence as though suit had been brought upon
it by payee. After the death of John S. Hunt,
the father of IRA L., Pegg was employed by
Chester Van Syckel, the executor, upon the
farm, until sale of the personal property
was made After this sale he continued there
and performed some services for IRA L., and
he alleged that upon her removal she settled
with him by giving him the note in question.
The defence was that the note was either
fraudulent or gift, without consideration.
The Court directed the jury that fthey found
the note was a gift, they should find for the
defendant that if they found it was given
for services, and that the maker had valued
the services at $500, she had a right to so val
ne them, although, in the estimation of the
jury, the labor performed mi hit be worth far
less and that if they found that the note was
given partly for services and partly as gift,
they should give the plaintiff a verdict for
that part given for services, and reject the
balance. Verdict for plaintiff, $50.
George Refill, ct al V. Jacob S. Durham.
Under an attachment issued against John
Refill, at the suit of Jacob S. Durham, horse
was attached, and the plaintiffs, the mother
and brother of John, brought this action of
replevin to recover the horse, and the ques-
ton was whether title thereto was in John
Refill or the plaintiffs. The defendant relied
upon the fact that the horse was purchased
by John. The statement of the plaintiffs was
that George was to furnish part of the money
and he and John should buy the horse and own
it together but that John failed to raise his
part and 80 the mother furnished money,
and together with George, owned the horse,
with the understanding that John should take
his mothers interest whenever he should pay
her the amount she furnished. Verdict for
plaintiffs.
The following persons were charged under
the indictments found against them:
Elizabeth Ely--Assault and Battery-Plea,
not guilty.
John Miler--Breaking, Entering and Lar
ceny--Plea, not guilty.
William King-Breaking, Entering and
Larceny-Plea, guilty.
William Sheppard-Breaking, Entering and
Larceny-Plea, guilty
John Gary and Theodore Denson-Larceny
Plea, net guilty.
John Gary and Theodore Denson--Enter-
ing and Larceny--Plea, not guilty.
Lewis Abel, John Abel and Henry Harrison
-Larceny--Plea,n not guilty.
John Abel--Assault ON Officer-Plea, not
guilty.
Daniel Brown-Assault with intent to Rape
Plea, not guilty.
Charles Reed--Breaking, Entering and
Larceny-Plea, guilty.
George Misunderstanding, Entering
and Larceny-Plea, guilty.
Henry Harrison aud John Abel--Conspira-
cy-Plea, not guilty.
James Murphy-Assault and Battery
Plea, not guilty.
The indictments were set down for trial on
this week.