The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1889-12-18
Tulip Soap has rapidly gone to the
front rank among our stores. 1t sells be-
cause It gives satisfaction to the user. =. :.
December Court.

December Court.
At the December term of Court, which
commenced on Tuesday of last week, the
following cases were tried:
Executors Of John w. Sharp v. David
l.. Evertt. This was a suit on note
made by one Schuyler and the defendant
to the order of the plaintiffs, and was
given TO cover the percentage of purchase
money for real estate struck off to Schuy-
Ter, which, by the condition OF sale, was
to be forfeited in case of the non-com-
pll4nce of the purchaser with the condi-
items. Schuyler never complied with the
conditions Of sale, and did not take title
SC the land. The defence was, .ha. when
MIR. Everitt signed the note as surety for
Schuyler 1t was distinctly understood that
before 1t was to be delivered to the plain
tiffs one Apgar was also to sign II as
surety. The Court directed the jury to
render verdict for The plaintiffs, and re-
served the questions of law.
John N. Voorhees, v. Fanny Traphagan.
This was suit on a note given by the
defendant TO the plaintiff for professional
services rendered the defendant as admin
istrator of her fathers estate. 1t was
claimed on the part of the defendant that
in the bill rendered by the plaintiff, and
for which the original note had been given
(the note in suit being the ninth or tenth
renewal,) the plaintiffs charges were
| greater than the value of the services, and
that payments to the amount OF 800
should have been credited on the bill be-
fore the note was given. The Court over
ruled the defence as to the value of SER
vices, and the jury rendered verdict for
the amount of the note, less the sum of
$50-represented by receipt made by the
plaintiff to the defendant as retainer In
the matter in which the services were rem
dered.
Mary NJ. Trout v. Heirs OF James NJ.
Case, deceased. The plaintiff was the
daughter of James NJ. Case, and claimed
to hold notes made by him in his lifetime,
one made in 1859 for $l05, and one in
1876 for $l03. No administration being
taken upon the estate of Mr.. Case, suit
was brought by the plaintiff against her
brother aud sister MS heirs-et-law OF the
father, he having died seized of real es-
tate. The defendants claimed that the
father had kept the plaintiff and her child
for many years and thus paid the notes,
and that they were barred by the statue
OF limitations. The plaintiff testified to
payments upon the notes which kept them
alive. Questions of law as to the compe-
tency of the plaintiff to testify as to trans
actions with her father, and as to the con-
struction Of a section OF the Limitation
Act were reserved for the advisory opinion
Of the Supreme Court, and the case was
submitted TO the jury upon the testimony
as adduced. Verdict for plaintiff for the
amount of both notes.
Cornelius It. Swackhamer v. Gee. II.
Daley, administrator of Stephen Backer,
deceased. This was suit upon two
promissory notes purporting to be made
by r. w. Backer and Stephen Backer to
the order OF Peter I. Green, enc for 5000
and one for $500. The defence was that
the name Of Stephen Backer TO the notes
was forged, and several experts pro-
nounced the signatures forgeries. Fol
the plaintiff II was insisted that the sigma.
lures we're genuine, and in conversation
with Mr.. Green respecting the notes, Ste
phen Backer having stated that he thought
they were paid, the statement was an &C.
acknowledgement OF liability which he could
not now retract. The testimony was con
cluded on Friday and the case was
given TO the jury Monday.