The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1881-12-14

the Chief Justice, in charging the Grand Jury,
stated that he had been requested to call their
attention TO certain matter respecting their
duty--that Of keeping secret the proceedings
before them that it was part Of their oath
not to divuigc the acts Of the jury as a whole,
or the acts Of any individual juror, either
while in session or after discharge
The following civil cases wore tried
Abraham D. Westbrook v. Lambertville
Manufacturing Company The plaintiff was
in the employ of the defendant as travelling
salesman for some years, and in December,
1879, was engaged, by vel bal agreement, for
another year. commencing January /, 1880, at
a salary of 81 900. Some time in March, 1880,
the President of the Company wrote the plain
tiff letter, complaining of some act conf
mitted by him, and discharging him from the
employ Of the Company The plaintiff claim
cd that the discharge was without cause, aud
held his services at the disposal of the Com
pany until the first of August, 1880, when he
found other employment. The suit was
brought to recover his salary from the date of
the discharge to August LIST also for an item
of 800 which he claimed the Company had
charged to him twice also for an item of $35
which was charged to him on the books of
the Company for sewing machine bought of
Edward Rittenhouse, the book-keeper of the
Company, and which he claimed had been
paid for by his wife, the wife testlfying to the
fact and relating particulars also for an item
of $97 alleged to be due him in transaction
with Chicago firm. As to the salary, the
Court held that the contract not being in
writing, and being not TO be performed
within year, it was void that the defendant
had right to terminate the relation at any
time, and therefore there could be no recovery
after discharge. AS to the item 800, the de-
PENDANT claimed that it was a charge made
against the plaintiff for money drawn upon
their account from Western firm, and not
charged to the plaintiff, nor credited to the
firm until more than year afterward, when
attention was called to it that the 500
charged to the plaintiff year before, aud
which he claimed was the same item, was
money paid by the Company to the wife of
the plaintiff, on his account. AS to the $50
item, Mr.. Rittenhouse testified that the wife
of the plaintiff did not pay him for the ma
chine, but he took the money from the till of
the Company and charged the plaintiff with
it. The books of the Company showed bal
anee in their favor of about $l25 upon the
whole account Verdict for plaintiff, $l6S 80.
Isaac p. Wilson v. William Farley ct. al,
Administrators of Francis Asbury Farley, de-
h 10 e.1;t
principally for board, washing, nursing, and
attendance upon the deceased while sick. The
defendants were willing to pay what, in their
Judgment, was a reasonable amount, but
claimed that the charges were exorbitant
The claim amounted to about SIT, ana the
jury rendered verdict of $685..
George +. Shivev. Fire Association of Phila-
delphia.-The plaintiff was the tenant Of the
mill known as Rowland's Mill at the time of
its destruction in November of last year. The
suit was brought TO recover of the defendant
the amount of policy for $1,000 issued by
the Company on the contents of the mill. The
plaintiff testified that the value of the grain,
&C., in the mill at the time of the burning was
about 81, 900, but counsel stated that they
only claimed 81 ,025, that being the amount
agreed upon by the plaintiff and the adjuster
sent by the Company shortly after the fire.
The Company resisted the claim upon the al
legged ground of fraud, taking the broad posi-
tion that the plaintiff had himself originated
the fire for the purpose of obtaining the insur-
ance money. The defendant relied upon cir
cumstauces, one of the strongest of which was
that, as it was contended, it was positively
of contents claimed by the plaintiff in fact,
that the mill was nearly empty. The Court,
in charging the jury, stated that the simple
question for them to determine was, was there
fraud ON the part of the plaintiff? The bur-
den of proof was on the defendant. If the
jury believed the fire was the work of the
plaintiff or that he made false representations
with reference to the contents of the mill,
knowing them 70 be false, he was guilty of
fraud, and they must find for the defendant.
After being out about three hours the jury
returned and stated to the Court that they
had agreed there was fraud, and asked if
under these circumstances, they could find
any sum iof tne piathliH. lue OourC sa'd
they could not, aud verdict was rendered
for the defendant
Five bills of indictment were found by the
Grand Jury - Hunterdon Democrat.
On Tuesday of last week the Court granted
the following hotel licenses Henry b. Kit
chin, Lambervile; Henry Cole, Milford ;
William Rutt, Little York.
j. M Hill applied for license to keep a
hotel in the township of Lebanon, but there
being objections made against granting the
same, it was laid over until Saturday.
headquarters for silk bandkerchiefs at
Van Horns. 2t.
EAGLE FIRE COMPANY BENEFIT The