The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1881-09-21

q Court PROCEEDINGS The second case
taken up (the first being the case of Samuel
Rinehert v. Lance and others, reported in our
last issue,) was John Ramsey v. Thomas
! AIcCarty. James Hickey and Kate McCardel.
SThis was suit on promissory note
zmade by the defendants to the plaintiff
& for $500, dated January Q, 1879. The
<defeEce was that the note was with
zout consideration; that on the day of
fits date John Reedy, who had been arrested
flor defalcation to the Railroad Company to
gthe amount of $4s4, had hearing before q
Justice, and was held to bail in the sum OF
/ $500; that the defendants were in Fleming
Ston for the purpose Of going his bail, but
scould not do SO as they resided out of the
scounty that they procured Ramsey to go his
,bail, aud gave the note to him to secure him
1 for any liability he might assume thereby !;
THAT no indictment was found against Reedy,
swho was present at the next term of court,
land the recognizance was thereby discharged,
land Ramsey released, and therefore there was
inc consideration for the note. On the part
.of the plaintiff it was contended that the note
had no relation to the fact of Ramsey's hav-
ling becomes Reedys bail; that the note was
given to secure Ramsey for money paid by
him to Joseph @. Smith aud William q. Jones,
who were the bondsmen of Reedy to the
railroad company, and who had given their
mote to the company for the amount of thel
3defaloation that Ramsey paid Smith and
.Jones and that the amount so paid by himl
twas due in this suit. Ramsey had endorsed
upon the note a payment of 800, made byl
.Reedy on the day he appeared in accordance
with the condition of the bail bond The|
lease was tried before the Court and decision|
Preserved until Thursday, when judgment wasl
rendered for the defendants. In stating hsI
decision the Chief Justice remarked that bel
Twas sorry that counsel had submitted ques
|tion OF fact to be decided by him there wasI
Ia direct conflict in the testimony, and he|
could only look at the probabilities; that the|
statements of the defendants that the motel
WAS given to indemnify Ramsey for any liza
|bility assumed by reason of giving bail forI
|Reedy was probable from the fact that theI
!amount Of the note and the penalty of theI
bond correspondent; that according to RAM
'sey's story be exacted $40 for going bail, bud
without any consideration he assumed to payE
Smith and Jones, and took the note of
strangers without question, which was inn
probable to say the least; that he did not be-
'licve Ramsey ever took the note for that pur-E
'pose. He further said that his theory about
1.-THE matter was that the note was given as col Il
lateral to secure him against liability on theI
bond, and that when Recdy came here inI
April aud paid him 800, Ramsey and Reedyl
had an understanding that the note should
stand, but that would not bind the parties to|
lii.
The next was No. A on the Supreme Court
list This was suit brought by Eliza A. Hoff-|
man and others, as Administrators of Sarah A..
Potter, deceased, against jacob N. Potter, on
Ia bond. The bond had been given to secure
the deceased right of dover in her husband s
sestste, the bond stipulating that certain
Sum was to be paid to her annually, which
aamounted to six per cent. per annum on the
samount invested. This was paid by the de-
led seven per cent, as others were getting
seven per cent, and that il the defendant did
I not pay it she would put the money in other
] hands where they could get the seven per
Gent The defendant then paid at the rate of
seven per cent until the last of April, 1877,
fhe ought The matter was then submitted TO
referees. The defendant claimed that the
areforees made an award that he paid more
Ethan be should and deducted one per cent,
land claimed that the deceased submitted to
! the finding of the referees, and that If she
anot sworn as the statute requires them to be,
Z land that the payment of seven per cent was
ghis voluntary act, and that he did 1t knowing
2all the facts, aud that now he was not entitled
Ito receive it back, and claimed that they were
3entitled to the interest on the bond from
aChief Justice charged the fury that the plain
Stifs could only recover for one year, and MOI
sfor two years, as the widow had died before
Slhe two years were up. If the jury found
1that the deceased did not submit to the find
Eing Of the referees, then the plaintiff could
%TtCOftI uut u QUO wv thch thSti fNtbit'
smust be for the defendant. The Jury retired,
and after being out several hours returned
Z with verdict In favor of the plaintiffs for
the sum Of $4,000. a
The next case tried was No. 10, on the
dCircuit list This was lien claim filed by
Jesse Owens and others against the house and
slot of J. Ii. Riddle and wife. The plaintiffs
Sbad sold large amount of lumber to the de-
Sfendant, who was a carpenter, and he had set
flied for some of it. The last he purchased
Swas to build house for himself, and there
Twas now due $277 to them on the account.
sThe plaintiffs filed lien on or about May
E4th, for the amount due them.
4 The defendants claimed that they did not
lowe the plaintiff but about $l48, and that it
was not lien on the house and lot, as the
summons was not issued within one year
that the last item in plaintiffs account of l,oOO
feet of hemlock was purchased for q Mrs.
5Srope's house, that it was not used 10 de-
$fendants house, and that being the case there
&could be no lien on the house and lot. The
&plaintiff claimed that the last item of 1000
%rooe - hor The potirad