The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1880-12-15


To carve that Christmas turkey. buy
Carving Knife and Fork of Gandey, Bridge
Street Hardware Store.
Court PROCEEDINGS. December
term of Court commenced on Tuesday last.
Chief Justice Beasey presiding. The causes
tried were the following
T.. Edgar Hunt v. George Gardner. This
was suit in covenant on a lease for term of
| ten years. from April /, 1865 to April /, 1875,
at the annual rent of $3.50. Il was claimed
by the plaintiff that the whole amount of rent
from April /, 1858, was still due, and that he
had sustained damage to the amount of about
500, by reason OF breech of the covenant as
to repairs. The defendant claimed that the
lease had been assigned to George w. Dewess
with the consent of the plaintiff, and that he
was therefore not liable thereon, and further
that the full amount of rent had been paid
the plaintiff by the said Devices. The Court
instructed the jury that there was no legal
assignment of the lease binding upon the
plaintiff, but that any payments made by
Devices were payments by the defendants.
Verdict for plaintiff, $l465.99.
Inhabitants City of Lambertville v. Aque-
tong Fire Co. Of Lambertville. 1873 the
plaintiff furnished the defendant some $1,000
Ito aid 1t in purchasing Steam Engine, and
this suit was brought to recover that amount,
the city claiming that it was loan. The de-
PENDANT contended that the advancement was
donation or gift, and also, that If a loan, it
was barred by the statute of limitations, more
than six years having elapsed before the com
mencement of the suit The plaintiff in-
| sisted that the understanding was that the
loan would not be re called SO long as the
statute did not commence to run until quite
recently, when the Company was declared
out of service by the city authorities. The
case was tried by Court, aud decision reserved.
| Forman Hawk v. William Cole.--This case
was tried at the December term, 1879, when
the jury failed to agree, and having been al
lowed to sleep for year, was again tried.
No new facts were developed, and we re pub
lsh our statement of the case at the former
| trial:
On the 22d of April, 1878, the plaintiff
loaned the defendant $3.50 and took his note.
On the 9Th of July he loaned him 800 more,
and took his note for 5000, with the under
standing that he should return the note for
! $3.50. The plaintiff claimed that on or about
the Goth OF July he again loaned the defend
ant $3.50 aud tonk his note and few days
afterward returned him as he supposed, the
| first note of $3.50. On the 31st OF December
the defendant went to the house of the plain
! tiff to settle with him, when the plaintiff
brought out two notes, one for 500 and one
| foi $3.50, and claimed there was due him $3.50.
The defendant said he only owed $500, be-
cause the $3.50 note was included in the $3.50
note Upon looking at the papers it was
found that the $3.50 note in the possession OF
| the plaintiff was that of April 22d, and the
plaintiff admitted that it was included in the
| 5000 note, but insisted that he had returned
tire wrong note, that of July Goth, instead of
the one of April 22d, and that there was due
him $3.50. The defendant paid the plaintiff
| $500 and took the two notes. This suit was
brought to recover the $3.50 claimed to have
been loaned July Goth, the note for which IL
was alleged had been returned by mistake.
| The defendant contended that the alleged
| loan of July Goth. had never been made thai
| he had never given note of that date, and
that no note had ever been returned to him
| by the plaintiff. The wife of the plaintiff
| testified that on the Goth of July she loaned
$3.50, and that ON the same day the plaintiff
brought her the defendants note for $3.50,
which she placed IN box with the others,
noticing at the time that there were three
notes of the defendant there she had after
ward seen the three Notes, aud saw the plain
| tiff take one for the purpose of delivering to
the defendant, leaving two.
After being out about 2S hours the jury
reported that they had agreed, and upon the
Clerk asking how they found, said they found
for the plaintiff the sum of $50 each party
| to pay half the costs. The Court was not
present, but Mr.. Wurts advised the jury that
they should say nothing about costs, and
thereupon, after consultation, they rendered
verdict for the plaintiff of $50.
Isaac X. DeMott v. Alexander Probasco.
| The defendant sold and passed. the plaintiff,
by delivery, note for $400-purporting to
be made by David Crotsley and John Spang-
enberg, to the defendants father, or bearer.
subsequently Spangenberg claimed that his
name was forged, and in suit brought by
DeMott to determine that question it was de-
cided that the note was not forgery, but was
usurious to the amount of $10--and therefore
DeMott lost that sum and the accrued inter-
est, and failed to recover cost. This suit was
brought by DeMott to recover damages for
his loss by reason of the usury, he alleging
that the defendant warranted the note at the
time of his purchase. The defendant insisted
that he did not warrant the note at all, and
that in passing the note to the plaintiff he
acted merely as the agent Of his brother, the
owner of the note, which fact was welLknown
to the plaintiff. The case was tried by the
Court and Judgment rendered for the defend
ant.
"UNDER THE WEATHER. How many
people drag through life about half i'll, never
really sick, but always miserable and doing
their work in listless, reluctant way. 1t
dulls the keen edge Of pleasure and kills the
zest of living All this results from impure
blood. A bottle of DIR. Kennedy's " Favorite