The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1879-09-10

@-@""9c
PENDANT asked aboM including the interest
when Losey said the child had been consider
able trouble and he should make the not,
/ $500, the amount of the principal Th,
defendant claimed an Offset for maintenance
of the child, and also for note of $500, made
by Ezra Losey and endorsed by Daniel Losey
This note has been discounted by the Clinton
Bank, was considered worthless and charged
to profit and loss. II was given by the Bank
to James N. Ramsey, one of the directors, tc
make what he could out Of. and by him trans
ferred to James N. Pidcce!s, who made an en-
dorsement of payment upon il, but for which
It would have become outlawed. The plain
tiff contended that the endorsement was made
without the consent of Losey, and therefore
the note was outlawed, and that it did not
come to the possession of the defendant until
after the suit was commenced. As to the
claim for maintenance of the child it was in
sisted by the plaintiff that there was no inten-
ton to make any charge, and that it was only
suggested as means of defense, after the suit
was brought on the note. Verdict for plain
tiff, $500.
Robert r. Smith v. Joseph Housel.-Suit
on note made by defendant to order of John
M. Housed, for $500, and purporting to be
endorsed by the payee. The defence was,
that upon the death of the father of John and
Joseph, they, together with their three broth
ers, agreed to add to the provision made by
the will for the support of their mother, the
interest of $500. each child contributing the
interest upon $500 that Joseph Housed took
Johns $500, and gave the note in suit, 1t be-
ing agreed that Joseph should pay the inter
est annually to his mother, and that the prin-
cipal should not be due until her death /; and
that the plaintiff took the note with full
knowledge of these facts. 1t was also con-
tended that the note never was endorsed by
John to the plaintiff it having been placed by
him in the hands of Geo. W. Smith & Co, to
hold as security for an Indebtedness to them.
1t was further claimed that at the time John
parted with the possession of the note, Joseph
held note against him for $40, which it was
agreed should be offset against the $500 note.
The case was tried by the Court, and
Judgment rendered the plaintiff for the
amount Of the note, less the $110.
Alexander Mathews v. Miles Mathews
Suit on note made by the defendant to the
plaintiff, for $3.50. The only question was
whether three endorsements made upon the
note by the plaintiff were authorized by the
defendant. If not, the note was outlawed.--
The evidence upon this point was confined to
that of the parties themselves, and consisted
of positive declaration of assent on the part
of the plaintiff and direct denial by the de-
PENDANT. Verdict for plaintiff.
Benjamin W. Ellicott v. Asher Higgins
This was a suit upon a note made by the de-
PENDANT to M. H. Dykeman. Before the note
came due, Dykeman died. and the note
ant claimed that the note was fraudulent and
without consideration, and that the plaintiff
had knowledge thereof. The Chief Justice
confined the defence to the question of the
bona tide of the plaintiff. The note was sent
by the executors to George A. Allen to dis
pose of as best he could. The plaintiff
testified that he bought 1t of Mr.. Allen before
maturity for full value, and gave his check,
and borrowed the money of Mr.. Conkling to
meet the check. He had no knowledge or
information that there was anything wrong
about the note, and bought tito accommodate
Mr.. Allen. The executors never received any
proceeds of the note. The Chief Justice
stated that assuming failure of consideration,
there was not sufficient testimony to warrant
the finding of knowledge on the part of the
plaintiff, and directed the jury to render a
verdict for the plaintiff.
Martha V. Hummer v. Frances Stryker.--
While attending donation party at the house
of Rev. j. ID. Randolph, in Freuchtowp, in
the Winterof 1875, the plume or feather was
stolen from the hat of the defendant. In 1877
the defendant saw what she supposed to be
her feather in the possession of Mrs. Large, a
sister of the plaintiff, and was informed by
her that she had procured it of the plaintiff.
The claim was that the defendant thereupon
circulated story to the effect that the plain
tiff had stolen her feather. Several witness
es testified that the defendant had told them
the plaintiff had taken the plume, and that
she also charged her with other offences. The
defendant stated that she thought the feather
of Mrs large was hers, and bad said that she
did not see how the plaintiff came by it, un-
less she took it, but denied the statements as
made by the plaintiffs witnesses. Verdict
for plaintiff, $75.
Peter Martenis v. Isaiah Baylor. This was
an action of replevin to recover a bay horse.
The plaintiff claimed the horse by virtue of a
chattel mortgage executed to him by Morris
F. Martenis, it being described therein as a
bay mare. The defendant claimed that he
bought 1t Of one vusler, and that Vusler had
bought it Of Martenis an after examination
of the ohattsI mortgage, and finding the horse
was not embraced therein. The case was tried
by the Court and decision reserved.
Licenses to keep Inns and Taverns we're
granted to George r. Gaddis, Lambertville ;
George Schenck, Clinton and Ludlow P.
Wooden, Readington. The applications Of j.
S. Hockenbury, of Delaware, VIM. X. Loud
enberger and Dennis Sullivan, of Lebanon,
and Titus 1ettimer, of bethlehem, we're laid
over until Saturday last, when testimony was
taken before the Court of Common Pleas.