The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1885-04-22

him to the custody of the New Jersey of
| ficers.
In his charge to the jury the Chief-Jus-
tice stated that if they found that the de-
PENDANT was the publisher of the Sun
they must give the plaintiff verdict, be-
cause he was technically guilty of a libel
in charging the plaintiff with bigamy !;
but the fact that no other part of the
article was complained of was a tacit adj
mission of its truth, and it was question
| for them to take into consideration in
estimating the amount of damages; that
it was for them to say how much the
plaintiff was injured by the statement
complained OF, in view of the fact that all
the rest of the statements were true.
Verdict for plaintiff, $30025. For plain
tiff, ], A. Beecher for defendant, A. Q.
Keasby, ]. N. Voorhees, and Mr.. Bart
lett from New York.
Francis I'll. Dilts v. Isaac X. DeMott.-
This was suit for SANDER, it being
claimed that the plaintiff, who was ten
ant of the defendant, had been charged
by him with having stolen his grain. 1t
appeared that in quarrel between the
parties the defendant told the plaintiff,
in. the presence of his work hand, that he
had taken his grain and given no account
of it, and had been long-fingered on his
property. Upon motion tue plaintiff was
non-suited. the Court being of opinion
that the words used would not support
the action. For plaintiff, A. c. Hulsizer
and ]. N. Voorhees, for defendant G.
Van Syckel, ]. G.. Shipman and ]. A.
Bullock.
David Haver v. William w. Trimmer.
This was a suit brought to recover the
sum of three hundred and fifty dollars,
the amount of note made by the plain
tiff to the order of the defendant, and
paid by the plaintiff to the Clinton Bank,
on which he claimed he was accommoda-
ton maker. The plaintiff had purchased
a pair of horses of the defendant, one of
which was lame, and which the defen-
dant warranted to come all right, and
when the horses were taken away the
plaintiff gave his note for the purchase
price, not as he claimed, in payment, but
as loan to the defendant. Within few
days, the horse which was not lame at the
time of the sale died, and the other horse
In, Of
plaintiff. The Court stated that the
plaintiff could not recover upon the ac-
ton in it's present form and permitted
the pleadings to be amended SO as to
make the suit one for damages for breach
of warranty of the horse which died. The
plaintiff claimed that both horses were
warranted and that the horse which died
was unsound, while the defendant insisted
that that horse was not warranted at all,
but was perfectly sound at the time of
sale. Verdict for plaintiff, Sill. For
plaintiff, J. N. Voorhees, for defendant,
r. S. Kuhl.
The Board of Chosen Freeholders ".
CathaIine Henry. This was suit to re-
cover moneys paid by the plaintiff in the
support of the defendant in the State
Lunatic Asylum, she being still lunatic,
but having acquired property since the
payments by the county. The cause was
tried by the Court, and decision reserved.
For plaintiff o. P. Chamberlin and j..
N. Voorhees, for defendant, r. S. Kuhl.
Matilda Lowe v. Margaret Hummer ct
al. This was an action brought against
the heirs at-aw of John Lowe, deceased,
| by the wife of one of his sons, for the
amount due upon note made by her
husband as principal and John Lowe as
surety, which note was not filed as a
claim against the estate of John Lowe.
The evidence showing that the deceased
made disposition of his estate by the Will,
the plaintiff was permitted to amend the
pleadings and declare against the defen-
dants as devisees but it being shown
that no lands were devised by the Will,
but that all the real estate was directed
to DO sold by the Executor, the plaintiff
was non suited. For plaintiff, r. s.
Kuhl; for defendant, A. G. Hulsizer and
j. A. Bullock.
Alfred G. Gandey v. Henry G. Hol-
combe. This was an action of replevin
to recover buggy wagon. George Suy-
dam, as the agent of the plaintiff,
traded the wagon to the defendant for
q horse, which he claimed the defendant
represented to be sound, but which proved
| to be lame before he reached home.
The horse was at once returned to the
| defendant, but he procured the wagon,
| and the question was whether at the
trade there was q representation as to
the horse being sound. The defendant
claimed that be made no such state
ment, and that Suydam knew very well,
that the horse was lame. Verdict for
plaintiff. For plaintiff, John Lilly and
J. N. Voorhees,; for defendant G. A.
Skillman.
William Van Horn v. Henry Cook.
This was an action for trespass in plac-
ing a stone wall or row on lands of the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded title
and claimed that the lands were his at
the point of the alleged tresrass. The
defendant having shown that the line
of the properties was in the centre of
the stone wall. verdict was taken for
the plaintiff for nominal damages. For
plaintiff, Voorhees, & Cotter 4; for defen-
dant, r. s. Kuhl.
At the close of the Friday afternoon
session Court was adjourned to Tues
day, the 21st instant.
The Grand Jury was discharged on
Wednesday their deliberations resulting
| in three bills of indictment.
The following applications for hotel