The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1880-12-22

CouRr PRocEEDINes.-Tn the second week
of Court, commencing on Tuesday of last
week, the following cases were tried
William N. Hoagland V. John II Krymer.--
This was an action Of repleyin. The plaintiff
traded horses with the defendant, giving $50
boot, the defendant warranting his horse to
be all right Subsequently, the plaintiff dis
covered, as he thought. that the horse he got
had the blind staggers, and took It TO the de-
PENDANT and demanded the return Of the horse
given by him in exchange This was refused,
aud the plaintiff repevined the horse, claim
ing that the defendant had knowledge Of the
u0soundness Of the horse, aud had perpetrsted
fraud upon him, and therefore he had
! right to rescind the contract. The defendant
claimed that he did not represent the horse to
be sound, and that il was not diseased the
Indications arising from natural causes. Yer.
dict for plaintiff
Ensign Decaturv. Reuben Vert. This was
an action of trespass for an assault. The
/ plaintiff and defendant were upon unfriendly
terms, the cause being n woman named Rosa
Ellis, who sometimes worked for the defend
ant. On an evening in November last Deca-
| tur aud Rosa went to the house of the Defend
aut, situate about mile from Lambertville,
when an alteration occurred between Deca-
tur aud the defendant, which resulted in De-
catur being shot in the foot and the defendant
being badly bruised in the face. The version
of the affair on the part of the plaintiff was
that the defendant was lying in watt and
upon Decatur's approach shot at him, the
charge whistling past his ear; that Decatur
sprang towards him and struck the gun down
just as he was in the act of shooting again,
the charge taking effect in his foot. The
plaintiff was confined to his bed for some
three months aud was put to expense ON ac-
count of doctors bills, &c, and the action
was to recover damage. The story of the de-
fendant was that he was feeding his hogs,
aud saw Decatur and Rosa go upon the porch
and try the door, and heard Decatur say that
now was their time to go in, as Vert was
away and he must have more money in the
house. The defendant alleged that he had
been robbed a short time before. He went
in the back of the house, got his gun, came
out and ordered Decatur to go away, aud fired
| his gun In an opposite direction, hoping to
frighten him that thereupon Decatur sprang
towards him, threw club at him, and then
some stones, one of which struck him in the
eye and knocked him down that upon aris-
ing to his knees he saw Decatur trying to get
through the gate towards him, and in that
position shot the other barrel. Afterwards
Decatur got to him aud struck him and cut
him with knife, and left him stunned and
bruised upon the ground. He did not know
the effect of his shot until the next day
When he shot he was in fear of his life. Ver-
dict, " No cause"
Christopher Starner ct. al. v. Nahum w.
! Tomson.--This was a suit on a note made by
the defendant to Christopher Stafner and Will
liam z. Alpaugh. 1t appeared that Starner
and Alpaugh bought lot of land to hold for
the defendant who was not in position to
have title in himself, aud subsequently judg-
ment was entered against them. in favor of
Henry II. Fisher, for the purchase money.
Afterwards Starner and Alpaugh conveyed
the property to the defendant, and took the
note, which the defendant claimed was in full
consideration of the deed, and that he had
made payments which nearly satisfied the
note. The plaintiffs insisted that Tomson
agreed to pay the amount of tho Judgment
against them, which was largely in excess of
| the note; that the payments had been APP
piled to that purpose, and that the note should
represent the amount paid by them upon the
Judgment, and the subsequent payments by
Tomson should not go to decrease the note
The Court stated that the gist of the action
was not upon the note, but for moneys paid,
aud as the prouf did not correspond with the
pleadugs he would permit juror to be with
drawn in order that the plaintiff might have
an opportunity of pleading anew.
Stephen X Large ct. al, Administrators of
John X. Large, v. David Sandetson This
/ was sui, for balance due on note for
81 900, made by the defendant to John X.
Large. The defendant claimed that check
for $500. given by him to John K Large,
should be endorsed upon the note. which
would fully pay it. The plaintiffs insisted
that the $500 check had been givento Stephen
/ X. Large, "A son Of john X, in payment of a
lumber bill, and was drawn To the order of
~. k" instead of 5. K >" through misap-
preheDsion or mistake. Verdict for plaintiffs
Nathan Lake " David Eick ct. al.-This
was action of trespass for obstructing a
right of way. The plaintiff claimed the right
OF way by prescription, but was unable to
prove continuous use for twenty years, and
submitted to n0u suit.
The jury was discharged until Wednesday,
the 22d inst HuRterdoR Democrat.
A Word ABOUT JEwELRy. Among the
embarrassing variety of articles suitable for
Christmas presents, some ladies and gentle
men are greatly exercised as to what to buy
for their friends Many to whom presents