The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1885-09-16
Court Prnceedinrs.

Court Proceedings.
On Tuesday morning of last week, the
September Term of the Hunterdon County
Court opened with Chief Justice Beasey
presiding, and associate Judges Sander.
son, Durham and Cullen. The atten.
dance was large. The first business ia
be transacted was the calling and swear
ing in of the Grand Jury. Their names
were published in our last weeks issue.
The tavern licenses were next investi.
gated and three hotels were granted
L. P. Wooden. White House Station.
j. S. Hocke injury, Stockton.
John Stryker, Pittstown.
The application of j. II. Willet, of Cal.
fon, was laid over.
The first case ed was No. 1, on the
Supreme Court list, William F. Finney
v. George A. Stryker. After this case
was called the Chief Justice stated that
he had been solicited by counsel to ap-
point stenographer in order to dispatch
business as the statute provided. He
thereupon appointed Mr. Gneichtel, of
Trenton, who was Immediately sworn in,
and the court at once proceeded to hear
the case which was an action brought by
DIR. Finney, of Frenchtown, against Geo.
A. Stryker for SANDER. DR.. Finney, who
is practitioner of medicine at French
town, at which place he has lived for sew
eral years boarding with Miss Frank Stry-
ker, sister of the defendant, they being
the only occupants in the house, claimed
that the defendant circulated story to
the effect that Miss Stryker and he were
not living properly together. The Doctor
claims that there never has been anything
improper in his relations with Miss Stry-
yer and brought this suit that his reputa-
ton might be vindicted. Voorhees, u
Cotter and L. D. Hagerman appeared for
the plaintiff aud II. A. Fluck and Alvah
A. Clark for the defendant. The jury
rendered verdict of nominal damages in
favor of the plaintiff.
The next case tried was No. on the
Supreme Court list. This was an action
brought by Gabries H. Leigh against
Henry A. Ramsey for an assault and bat
terry. The plaintiff testified that the de-
PENDANT had on the Goth day of December,
1884, in the store of the defendants
father at Potterstown, without just cause
or provocation given him severe beat
ing, that at the time he was just recover
ing from broken collar bone, and that
the sudden jar was such as to occasion a
return of the soreness in very aggravat-
ed form. That he was compelled for a
long space of time to give up work and
expended large sums of money in healing
himself of the bruises received at the
hands of the defendant. The defense in
terposed by defendant was that the plain
tig had provoked him by insulting lang
uage aud that he took hold of him in Or
der to quiet him down but that he did not
hurt him in the least. For plaintiff,
Voorhees, & Cotter, for defendant, r. 3.
Kuhl. Verdict, 800 in favor of plain
tiff.
Solomon Mehrbock v. John McClou-
CHAN. This was suit upon check for
$500, made by the plaintiff. The plain
tiff, who resides in the city of New York
sold the defendant team of horses for
$500, and took the checks in payment,
one for 800 and one for $500. The horses
were warranted, and the defendant claim
ing that they were unsound, stopped pay
ment upon the $500 check, and suit was
brought upon it. After the suit was
brought an agent of the plaintiff went to
the farm of the defendant and offered to
return him the $500 check and pay him
back the 800 already received, If he
would deliver the horses to him. This
the defendant declined to do, alleging as
reason that he might be held liable for
costs. In letter written by the defen-
dant to the plaintiff, he made the state
ment that as he understood the contract,
If the horses were found to be unsound,
they should be returned, and the money
refunded. The Court stated that if such
were the contract, as the horses had not
been returned, there was no defence to
the suit, aud that question would be re-
served, and the case go to the jury upon
the question of warranty. AS is usual in
horse cases, there was great diversity OF
opinion as to the condition of the horses,
the witnesses of the defendant testifying
that they were unsound, and those of the
plaintiff that they were sound. The jury,
in the absence of the Court, rendered a
verdict for the defendant of $75. 1t is
generally understood that this was mis-
take, and that what the jury intended to
find was verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount of check, less the sum of $75.
Eldridge Bennett v. Peter Gilrean.
This was replevin suit for COW, which
the plaintiff claimed to have purchased OF
John Ramsey. The question was as to
whether title to the COW was in Ramsey
at the time of the sale to the plaintiff
Ramsey claimed it was, by reason of trade
made with the defendant, whereby the
defendant took horse and he the COW.
The defendant claimed that the trade was
not complete that he was to have the
horse on trial for week, and returned il
to Ramsey before the expiration of the
time agreed upon. Ramsey conceded that
the defendant was to have certain time
in which to give the horse trial, but
contended that the time had passed be-
for the horse was returned, and that the
trade was consummated. Verdict fol
plaintiff, $40.
Henry Bells and William Bells v.
Mahlon BELLS. This was suit to recover
a penalty of IS each, for the cutting o.
1874 saplings on the property of the plain.
tiffs. The defence was that right O.
way of the defendant over lands Of thu
plaintiffs had been obstructed by thu
plaintiffs, and the cutting was done in or
Il.