The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1882-09-13

With the Chief Justice upon the bench
were associate Judges Sanderson, Jones
and Hoffman. After the old and very
familiar proclamation of o, Yes; 0, Yes;
Q, Yes; Sc, by our popular crier, Il. B
Kitchin, the Grand Jury was called and
sworn.
/ Twenty out of the twenty four answer
ed to their names. The Chief Justice in
his address to the Grand Jury, stated that
he had nothing of special importance to
charge them. They elected Constables
Jos. Bayard and A. B. Chamberlin, to
attend them during their sitting, and re-
tired to their rooms, after which q few
common motions were heard After these
were disposed of, two applications for
license were granted, to wit:
L. P. Wooden, of Readingtou, and
John s. Hockenbury, Of Stockton.
Then the list Of causes was called and
arranged for trial. There were 2s in all.
The first case moved was Henry q.
Hooker v. Richard Mcdowell. This was
/ a suit for a balance claimed to BIO due
from the defendant to the plaintiff. upon
a settlement of joint account of stock
speculations carried on by the parties
through brokers in New York, aud which
specuiations turned out disastrously. The
case had been referred, and, upon the
filing of the report of the referee, a dissent
was filed. One witness was sworn and
examined, and 1t was agreed that the tes-
timony taken before the referee should be
read In evidence and the case decided by
the Court. The reading of the evidence
and the argument were deferred until the
jury cases should be disposed of.
The first Case in which jury was en-
paneled was No. on the Supreme Court
List--Samuel Bacorn VS.. Jas. v. d. Ten
Eyck, ct. al.
This was an action for false imprison-
ment-arising from some imperfection In
the papers, &C. The whole proceeding
was somewhat mixed as it came before
the Court, and we failed to see much in
terest in it. The Chief Justice directed
verdict of six cents damages against
Ten Eyck.
A petition was presented to the Court
praying for rule to show cause why the
license, which was granted last term to
Andrew Fritts to keep an inn, should not
be revoked because said Fritts did not
live in the township where he was to keep
an inn. The rule was granted and was set
down for hearing before the Common
Pleas Court, on Saturday, tho 1eth, a. 10
o'clock.
The next case was No. on the Supreme
List-John Ramsey VS.. John s. Smalley
d Son, late partners, sc.
This was an action brought by the
plaintiff against the defendants to recover
the amount due on two promissory notes,
given by the defendants to the plaintiff,
one FOR the payment of $40 and the other
for the payment of $3.50. The defendants
admitted that they were just debts and
unpaid, whereupon the Chief Justice di-
rec.ed the jury to render verdict for the
full amount of the two notes with inter-
est, which was done.
The next case tried was No. 3 on the
Circuit list, Jacob K. Crater VS.. John P.
Brothers and William Farley, admins
traitors of Francis A. Farley, deceased.
This was an action brought to recover
pay for boarding and taking care of the
deceased in his life time by the plaintiff,
Before the plaintiff was through with his
evidence, both PARTIES got together aud
settled the case.
The next case was No. 8 on the Circuit
list William Dalrymple We. William r.
Little. Both parties are residents of
Bloomsbury.
This action was brought to recover
damages for an assault and battery. The
PENDANTS drug store in the village of
Bloomsbury, on the 25th of July. 1881,
that after being there awhile, he and the
defendant had dispute, and that the de-
PENDANT struck him with his fist, and also
kicked him on tumor he had growing
on him.
The defendant admitted that he made
the assault, but claimed that he did 1t 10
self-defence that the plaintiff used rough
language toward him, and also assaulted
him first The jury, after being out a
short time, returned with verdict for
the plaintiff of $50. rs
The next case tried was No. 10 on the
Circuit list, John w. Slack vs.. Andrew
Slack. This was an action brought to
recover damages for SANDER. Both
parties live in Frenchtown. The defend
ant is the plaintiffs uncle. The plaintiff
claimed that the defendant had accused
him of embezzlement. The jury returned
a verdict of $500 in favor of the plaintiff.
Mary Dryer v. Martin V. B. Holcombe
and others. There being dispute about
the line between lands of Holcombe and
the plaintiff, Holcombe, with the other
defendants, went upon the lands then In
the possession of the plaintiff TO build a
fence. 1t was claimed by the plaintiff
that upon her demonstrating, the defend
ants assaulted her, striking her and pull
ing her hair. The defendants insisted
that they did not touch her, and the only
difficulty was an effort on the part of the
plaintiff to seize some Of their implements
as they were retiring In obedience to the
orders of the plaintiff. Verdict for de-
PENDANTS. sn
This completed the civil causes ready
for trial, and the Jury was discharged UNI
til the first Tuesday in October.
The Grand Jury finished their business
on Thursday last. The number of bills of
of indictments found was 10. h
-Shamalia's Bridge Street Drug Store,
the cheapest and best place to buy pure
drugs and medicines. s -