The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1889-04-17

AS 10 those clauses of tho law that
prohibit the sale of liquor on Sundays all
that wish to say on the subject is that
the provisions appear to me To be in q
state OF chaos, aud that ii is desirable that
they be brought before the courts as soon
as practicable for calculation and exposi-
tion. The views Lere expressed are not,
of course, final constructions of the acts
referred to, but such as have been sug-
gested on careful reading of them.
The following applications for licenses
were then granted, and the fees fixed as
follows:
William HOLES, Mt. Pleasant, 800.
John ]. Kinsley, High Bridge, $3.50.
William A. Melick, junction, $125.
Lambert Humphrey, Pennington, $500.
William A. Morrison, Annandale, $3.50.
A.W. Baldwin, Baptisttown, 800.
Calvin Hill, Reaville, $3.50.
w. Il. Laudenberger, junction, $125.
John T. Ent, Sergeantsville, $3.50.
George B. Hance, Milford. 5000.
M. II. Rupel, Milford, $175.
Howard Mettler, Little York, 500.
William B. Bovine, Quakertown, 800.
John p. Rittenhouse, Ringoes, $3.50.
Thos. l.. Anderson, Pattenburg, 500.
Edward Humphrey, Glen Gardner, $3.50
William G. Mettler, Perryville, 500.
Levi Abel, Bloomsbury, $500.
Charles A. Robertson, West End, 800.
John Burns, Pittstown, 800.
William II. Force, Pennington, $400.
Abram s. Case, Three Bridges, $3.50.
Austin Clark, New Germantown, $3.50.
s. NJ. and A. w. Lowe, Lebanon, 800.
John P. Smith, New Hampton, 800.
The application of Isaac j. Latourstte,
for license TO keep hotel at White
House Station, was laid over to the 10Th
INST, there being remonstrance against
1t. All applications to sell by large mea-
sure, required under the Worts law, were
laid over until the same time.
John L. Jones, Receiver, VS.. VIM. j. l
Kimble. Under foreclosure proceedings
In the Court of Chancery, an execution
issued to Master of the Court to sell
certain interests 10 lands which were en-
braced In the mortgage. The Master hav-
ing sold the property for 800, and re-
ported the sale to the Court, the defend
ant filed exceptions, alleging that the
price was inadequate to value, and stipu-
lating that he would, If a new sale was
ordered, make the property bring $500
An order was made for u resale, upon
the defendant entering into bond condi-
toned that at such resale he would bid
the sum of $500. The suit was upon the
bond, 1t being claimed that the Master
made new sale Of the property, at which
sale II was again struck off for tho sum OF
800, the defendant failing to carry out
the condition OF tho bond and make 1t
bring the $500. On the part of the de-
PENDANT it was contended that at the
second sale certain part Of the property
advertised and sold at the first sale was
not included. and therefore there never
was re sale of the property mentioned
10 the bond. The case was heard by the
Court and decision reserved.
w. s. Creveling VS.. West End Iron
Co.-This was a suit for rents alleged to
be due the plaintiff from the defendant
upon mining lease. The question Ia
dispute was as to the proper construction
of the terms of the lease, and tho Court
took the papers, without their being read
10 open Court, for future examination
and decision.
Joseph F. Shaw VS.. Samuel f.. Schenck
This was an action for damages for Of
alleged assault. The plaintiff, a yer,
young minister of the Methodist Church
was last year stationed at Newmarket
In West Amwell township. He claimed
that late In the afternoon of the 9th o
August, as he was passing along the roat
In front of the premises of the defendant
the defendants dog came out and actet
as though it would bite him, whereupoI
he threw two stones at the dog; tina
thereupon the defendant appeared, AMI
after some angry words having passed be
tween them, and as the plaintiff was pass
ing along the road, he having resumed
his walk. the defendant stepped benin,
him and struck him in the back of tn
neck, knocking him down, and kicke,
him while down; that he got up 40,
moved off few. PAGES, when the defend
ant seized him by the throat and threw
him down, and that after he had arisel
the defendant followed him up, brandish
ing knife 10 his hand, caught him
threw him down, and attempted to strik
him M the knife, when defendants sol
appeared, caught his fathers arm an,
told him that he had gone far enough
II was claimed that the motive for the al
sault was, that the defendant was yer
angry at the plaintiff for the part he too
in charges preferred against the defend
ant, and which resulted Ia his expulsio
from The church. The defendants vel
sion Of the affair was, that hearing hi
dog bark he went TO see what was tb
matter, and found the plaintiff on hi
premises stoDing the dog; that some an
cry words passed between them, th
plaintiff threatening to throw q larg
stone which he held 10 his hand, at th