The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1880-04-21
Especially Reported for The REcoRp.J
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Pennington, N. j., April 90 1880.
AT the date of our last report the case of
George M. Freck VS.. John G. Cramer was still
unfinished. The defense was, in the first
place lack of knowledge, on the part of the
defendant, of the character of the disease and
its infectious quality in the second place,
the use of all needful precautions to prevent
injury to others ; and ID the third place, a
lack of diligence and care, on the part of the
plaintiff, to prevent damage from resulting to
himself. They also relied, to very great ex-
tent, on the defense that the disease very fire.
quently followed the use of certain food
which both the parties had supplied to their
stock, and-that it was therefore more than
possible that the cattle of the plaintiff caught
the disease from the food given them and not
by infection from the defendants herd. The
case was rather long and tride tedious. The
jury rendered verdict of no cause of action.
Spencer A. Weart ct al. Executors of James
S. Fisher decd, VS.. Jacob g. Manners, was
next called. The action was brought to re-
cover about $12,0 900 paid by the said Fisher
in taking up certain notes. The case may be
briefly summarized as follows, In the Spring
Of 1878 firm was organized at Wertsyile,
under the name of Manners, Fisher u Co., for
the purpose of manufacturing DOORS sash,
&C., at Seaford, in the State Of Delaware.
The article was signed by Jacob G. Manners,
J. s. Fisher, Jr., Artemus q Young and Gil
bert A. Randall. For the purpose of raising
money to start the firm loans were negotiated
and notes given therefor, signed by Jacob G.
Manners, Artemus S. Young and James s.
Fisher, the last named person being the de-
cedent and the father of J. s. Fisher, Jr. The
suit was brought to recover the amount of
certain of these notes which the deceased, Mr.
Fisher had taken up. The case was very
complicated The plaintiffs alleged that the
decedent had only signed the notes as surety,
although he appeared on their faces as max
er, and was consequently entitled to recover
the amount he had expended in paying them
off. 1t appeared that the senior Mr.. Fisher
had signed the article Of 90 partnership, some
time after its execution by the others, aud
had erased the name j. s. Fisher, Jr. This,
the Court held, was sufficient to prevent his
maintained that he was entitled to sue for
contribution, 1. 6. for third of the amount
paid by him. The defense was mainly as
follows That the decedent was from the be-
ginning member Of the firm, his son having
signed the fathers name for him in the pres
ence Of all the parties, at his fathers request
That the signature originally stood j. s. Fish
or, and that the letters "Jr." were after
wards added by some one without the knowl-
edge of the defendant. That the son had al
ways acted as his fathers agent in the bust
ness ; and that therefore the suit was not
maintainable, it being in effect a suit between
parties on partnership matter. James s.
Fisher, Jr., was produced as a witness ON the
part of the plaintiffs and testified that lie did
not sign the agreement for his father but for
himself. That he furnished money of his own
| for the partnership stock. That he always
had acted as partner. That the letters Jr.
had been written by him at the time be sign
ed the article of copartnership and that the
erasure of his name was done without his
knowledge or consent. The Chief Justice
dismissed the Jury and finished the case be-
fore, the Court. He gave no decision. howev-
er, but gave the parties time to settle the
matter between themselves, If possible, there
being several other points which could not be
decided in this cause which might be eonsid-
cred in settlement.
The case of Joseph ]. Frazer VS.. The Lam
bertville Water Power Co., was next called.
The questions in dispute are probably familiar
to many of your readers. The plaintiff was
formerly treasurer and secretary of the Water
Power Company and brought the action to
recover the sum which remained due him on
settlement Of the books, he alleging that be
had been charged with a large sum which
should have been charged to profit and loss.
The defendant claimed that he had assured
the payment Of the amount and was therefore
rightly charged with it. The jury rendered
verdict of $945.03 for the plaintiff
| Skiilman VS.. Stout was next tried. The
action was for SANDER of the plaintiff. The
parties had been interested, as lawyer and
witness respectively, in trial before justice
and had an alteration about question put
| by the plaintiff to the defendant. The de-
PENDANT during the dispute charged the plain
tiff with having sworn to a falsehood, or some
words Of similar import, in cause which
had been tried between his brother and him
self The defense was that the words used
were not actionable, the charge having been
that he had "sworn to what was not SC"
The case has not been submitted to jury as
yet.
The case Of Hooker VS.. Mcdowell is expect
ed to begin tomorrow.
The grand jury has finished its labors They
found II bills of indictment, most Of which
are for petty crimes The honors, as to the
number Of bills, are about easy between Lam
bertyile and s'Sweet Hollow.n
=->%---~es--.>-
"A cf,rnnlete assortment of Tnndhoro,e