The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1883-12-12

Beasley presiding, and Lay Judges Holt
man aud Durham on the Bench. The
Grand Jury was FIRST called by Deput,
Clerk John NJ. Hyde. Twenty-Five re.
sponded TO their names and were sworn
in, being sent to their room without any
charge from the Chief Justice,
There was but Que application FOR hote
license-that of Henry Cole, of Milford :
which was granted
The list of causes for the term was then
called. The following is the list noticed
for trial.
SUPREME COURT CAUSES.
/. David B. Smith V. James N. Pid-
cock. Covenant. RS Kuhl-A A Clark.
2. Rose B. Wilson v. Julia Bowen.
Case. Voorhees, g. Cotter-R S Kuhl.
3. Thomas s. Latourette ". Lehigh
Valley R r Co. Case. r 8 Kuhl--
i Voorhees, s. Cotter.
. 4. John V Berkaw V. John + Withers
Case. Fl A Fluck--L II Schenck.
CIRCUIT COURT CAUSES.
1. John NJ Chamberlin. ct all exors. ".
i Mary A w Elliott. Case. o P Cham
berlin-E Conkling.
2, Christopher Starner, OF al V. Nahum
w Tomson. Case. 2 Conkling-
Voorhees, & Large.
Mary Ann Pickel v. Adam B Pick
ell. Trover. A A Clark-Voorhees s.
( Cotter.
A. Matilda Lowe Margaret Hummer,
OF al. Case. r Kuhl-A e Hnlsizer.
.. William Fulper v. Josiah @. Hoag-
land. Trespass. EP Conkling-Voor-
hees & Large.
6. A c Candy Y. Henry G Holcombe
Repleyin. John Lilly-C A Skillman.
Z. William Ritteuhouse v. Daniel S
Bodine. Case. c A Skillman -Voor-
hees & Cotter.
8. Levi Reynolds Y. Benjamin Rice.
Case. w F Hero A Skillman.
8, John NJ Apgar v. John G Dcibig-
heisor. Replevin. Voorhees, 4 Cotter-H
B Herr.
10. somuel c Case y. William 4.
Leonard, ct al. Trespass. voorhees, Is
Cottcr-R 5 Kuhl.
II. Solomon Mehrbach " John Nc
Cloughan. Case. Earle Insley-Voorhce
& Cotter
l2. Samuel C Case " Asa Dalrymple.
eft al. Case. Voorhees, Il Cctter-R )
Kuhl. sra
10. Henry r. Williams, admr, Y. Mary
f Pickell, ct al. Debt. A A Clark
CASTOR g. Bergen.
ID. William f Finney v. George Stry-
ker. Case. Voorhees, & Cotter-H A
I Fluck
10. John NJ. Baldwin, appellant, ".
John Jones, appellee. On Appeal, Noof-
bees & Cotter--R $ Kuhl.
lG b. S. Laudsbach V. William S
Crevelng. Case. J NJ Scovel-H A
Fluck
( The first case tried was that of Thomas
s. I.atourette VS.. the Lehiah Valley r. n.
Co. In August, 1889, Mr.. Latourette
had been to Pennington, and in returning
home, just as he was crossing the
track at Pennington junction, train
struck his wagon and horses, breaking
the wagon and killing both horses, be-
sides very seriously injuring Mr.. Latour
cite. 1t was for this that the plaintiff
sued the Company for damages. The
plaintiff and two or three other witness
es were sworn, aud testified in relation to
the accident. The Chief Justice nom
suited the plaintiff, on the ground that
he had by his own negligence, in not ex-
ercising proper care when approaching
the crossing, contributed to his own in
jury. This case, we understand, will be
at once taken to the Supreme Court.
The next case was that of John Y. Ber-
kaw VS.. John +. Withers. This was an ac-
ton brought To recover the amount of a
note for $500, made by the defendant to
the order of George w. Cook, and en-.
dorsed by him There was also an ac-
count for rents collected by the defen-
dant, As TO the rents, 1t appeared that
they were collected for Berkaw and Cook,
as Executors of Oliver ii. Ewing, deceas
cd upon property owned by him at the
plaintiff could not recover them in a suit
brought by him in his own individual
name. The defence to the note was
that 1t was an accommodation note made
by the defendant for the firm of Cook &
Berkaw, upon the request of Cook; that
the defendant signed a note in blank for
that purpose, and the body was filed in
afterward by Cook; that part of the pro-
ceeds of the motto went to the firm and
part to Cook. 1t was also claimed that
as between Cook & Berkaw there was a
settlement Of this note in a transfer of
Cooks property to Berkaw. The Court
instructed the Jury to render a verdict
for the defendant. for the reason that the
note having been merely accommodation
paper for the firm Of Cook & Berkaw.
there could be no recovery upon it by one
of the firm.
William Fulper v. Josiah @. Hoag-
land This was a suit for damages for
an alleged trespass ON lands of plaintiff.
The defendant had a right of way over
the plaintiff, and it was claimed that be