The Monmouth inquirer., 1888-10-18

I
DER, PRESIDING, AMP ASSOCIATES
ALFRED wALLING, JR., BENNETT
| AND CURTIS
Ee CIRCUIT COURT.
The case of Kelsey Brothers VS..
Richard Wallace occupied three days
and was finished on the12th inst. The
following is the case presented by the
plaintiff. In the winter of 1888 the
Kelsey Brothers were doing business
as grocers, at Keyport, in building
owned by Richard Wallace, which
they rented of him, Their, stock of
goods became run down and Wal
lace asked them what they would
take for the store. They took an in
ventory of the goods which amounted
to 1926, and told him that they would
take that amount. Wallace endeav-
ored to buy it for 5000, but they
would not sell it at that price, and he
agreed to give them their price. They
Immediately gave up possession of the
goods to James Wallace, a son of the
defendant, and Cornelius Post. who
waste be a partner with young Wal
lace in the business. James Wallace
and Post took possession and com
menced selling goods. The Kelsey
Brothers We're to give a bill Of sale on
the goods and had one drawn up by
Squire Warner, but Wallace would
not accept it because the KELSEY
Brothers would not enter into con
tract not to engage in the grocery
businessfor five years. Wallace then
went to the store and told his son and
Post to leave the store. and not sell
any more goods. Wallace afterwards
.applied to Squire Shumar, of Free
hold, for possession under the Land
lord and Tenant act. Justice Shu-
mar after due proof and due course
OF proceedings issued warrant to re-
move the tenant and placed it in the
hands OF Constable, George Adams.
who entered the store and removed
the goods and gave possession to Wal
lace Mr.. Dayton, attorney for Kel-
-sey Brothers, notified the constable
that the plaintiff S had parted with
all ownership in the goods and claim
ed no interest in them. The goods.
We're stnsses in q box stall where they'
remained up to the time of the trial
Kelsey Brothers then commenced this
suit to recover the price of the goods
The defendant denied that he had
purchased the goods; also denied that
he knew OF their whereabouts after
they We're taken from the store. The
jury returned verdict for S239. 80 in
favor OF the plaintiffs. For the plain
tlffs, Rens. W. Dayton; for defendant
Judge Beekman.
The case of Louisa A. Brown VIC
Wesley B. Stout, ct ais, is now haino
tried. Warren Brown, agent of
Louisa Brown, contracted with Wes-
ley Stout and Joseph Stout to build
for them at Loeb Arbour, in this coun-
W. a mouse complete, except the roof
and few extras, and to have the
work done by December 25th. 1887
The contract price was SO, 75O. The
work was not completed upon con
tract time and the Messrs Stout served
a notice upon Brown in January 1883
to complete it. They also served anoth-
er such notice in June of, this wear
In August 1888 Brown filed a. lien
against the building to secure a part
OF the contract price which had NOT
been paid and this suit resulted. The
plaintiff produced many witnesses to-
prove that she had fulfilled her part
Of the contract and therefore was was en-
Titled to recover, The defense is. that
the work is not finished ,accordino To
contract, that the mortar used in the
building was of an inferior quality
and the walls We're poorly constructed
and had cracked. One chimney was
was not erected that the contract call
ed for,s and the ehimneys and founda-
tions had cracked, and the general
workmanship was inferior, and the
materials used We're poor; Also that
the painting was not according to
contract and was an INJURY to- the
house. Messrs.. Stout had the painter,
Archibald APPLICABLE arrested for
damaging their property There was
also a. dispute about the payments.
The defendants claim, that, they have
paid sssplaintif about, five ! hundred
dollars.mere than she has given them
credit for. For the plaintiff, Hawkins
y Durand; for the defendants, R. Il.
Stout and Judge Hoffman.
ArA s41s. u APresbyteriaT. IL AL
Until further notice, the hours Of
service. at the Freehold, Presbyterian