The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1886-04-21

siding, aud associate judges Durham and
Cullen.
As is usual on the first day of the term
large number attended The Grand
Jury was first called and as nothing in
particular had been brought to the notice
of the Chief Justice, they were sent to
their room without any special charge
from him.
The hotel licenses were next taken no.
tice of and the following applications were
granted Abram S. Case, Three Bridges /;
A. w. Baldwin, Kingwood Davis Tay-
lor, Mount Pleasant; William A. Mel.
ick, junction Mark L. Devlin, High
Bridge William Morrison, Annandale !;
Charles A. Robertson, West End VIM.
c. Mettler, Perryville Howard Mettler,
Little York John P. Rittenhouse, Rim.
goes Austin Clark, New Germantown !;
Calvin Hill, Reaville, John T. Smith,
New Hampton Jacob l.. Wilson, Ser
geantsville Edward Humphrey, Glen
Gardner ; Lambert Humphrey, Fleming
ton w. II, Force, Jr., Pennington.
The following applications were reject
ed Mahlon Bonnell, Pattenburg S. W.
Shively, White Hall and VIM. r. Lauden
berger, Lebanon Township.
The first case tried was No. l. on the
Supreme Court list, Conrad f. Apgar v.
Samuel Boss, ct ais. This was an action
of trespass for breaking and entering the
plaintiffs dwelling situated near the vii.
lage OF Lebanon, and taking therefrom a
large amount of household goods, which
he claimed to be his property. The de-
fence interposed by the defendant was
that they had Como to the plaintiffs resi-
dence and taken away the property at the
request of the plaintiffs wife, who had
left her husband, and desired to get her
goods which she had received from home,
and some of which she had purchased
with money received from sources other
than her husband. j. G.. Shipman and
II A. Fluck appeared for tho plaintiff,
and L. p. Conkling, the attorney of rec
ord, being sick, Messrs VOORHEES, & Cot
ter appeared for the defendants. The
jury, after short deliberation, rendered
a verdict of six cents in favor of the plain.
tiff.
Frazer NJ. Servis V. Asher Higgins.
This was an action for breach of warranty
in the sale of peach trees. In the Spring
of 1884 the plaintiff bought of the defend
and 500 peach trees, and set them out up
on what he considered good peach land :.
The plaintiff claimed that the trees we're
warranted to be all right, but finding they
did not grow right, in the Fall of 1884 he
went to the defendant and requested that
his money be paid back; that the defend
ant refused to refund his money, but said
he would give him trees the next Spring
to supply the places of any which might
have died; that in the Spring of 1885 the
defendant gave him 1876 trees which he
planted in another field; that 10 the Fall
of 1885 he was compelled to take out the
trees planted in the Spring of 1884, for the
reason that they did not grow right. The
plaintiff claimed that the trees were Win
ter-killed in the nursery, meaning that
they had been SO affected by the frost as
to be seriously injured, but not entirely
dead, and asked tor $500 damages, or
what the orchard would have been worth
in the Fall of 1885 IL the trees had been
as represented. The defendant insisted
that the trees were not warranted; that
the taking by tho plaintiff of the 125
trees IN the Spring of 1886 was a settle
ment of all damages then claimed by the
plaintiff, and that the trees when taken
from tho nursery by the plaintiff were moi
Winter. killed, and were good, healthy
trees. A number of successful peach
growers were called as witnesses, and
there was diversity of opinion as to the
question of Winter-kiled trees. Some
witnesses thought that trees affected by
the frost would show blemish upon the
inside near the heart, and thata darkened
appearance Of the wood there would in.
dictate that they were Winter-killed, while
others claimed that it was impossible fol
tree to be hurt by the frost unless II
was entirely killed-that is, that the first
part to be effected would be the bark and
outside where the sap runs, and that The
starting Of the buds is evidence that trees
have not been injured by the frost. Yer.
dict for plaintiff, IS.
II. M. T. Beekman, Executor Of Fanny
Traphagen v. Fanny Melck and Ernest
e. Mellick. This was an action of Trovel
to recover tho value of bond aud mort
gage and several notes made by various
parties to Fanny Traphagen, and which
after her death, were found to be In the
possession of Mrs. Melick. The plaintiff
claimed that these securities were still tn {
property of the estate of Fanny Trapha
gen, aud had been unlawfully taken by
MIS-. Melick, the theory being that they
o"t SCsH Wulc MISS llhDUdKeI
was upon her death bed. Mrs. Melick
claimed that the paper had been handed
to her by the deceased some time before
her death, in consideration of service rem
dered. The Court stated that the de
PENDANT had proved no title to the pa pels
and instructed tho jury to render a YER
dict for the plaintiff for the amount due
upon them. Verdict, 81, 05710.
( The Grand Jury did not finish their de-
liberation until the afternoon of Friday
when they were discharged, having found
IA indictments.
The Petit Jury was discharged unit
April 81, when the criminal business will
be taken up.
GENERAL SHERIDAN See local.
A MOTHERS LOVE.
Some day.