The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-09-11
MIR. BABBITT WINS.
At Least He Will Not Have to pay
Dr.. Moore the Third Note.

The jury in the case of Charles v
Moore against R. o. Babbitt was charged
by Judge Knapp this morning and after
an hours ieliberation rendered a verdict
for Mr.. Babbitt, the defendant The
verdict is only to the third note and does
not entitle Mr.. Babbitt to collect bech
the 81, 900 he paid on the other two notes
Mr.. Collins explained that some years
ago II. 0. Babbitt endorsed note made
by Stanton e. Campbell to Samuel L.
Schenck for $4,000, which note was dis
counted by DIR. Charles V. Moore. WheI
the note became due it was not paid ant
Mr.. Babbitt was held for the amount
and suit was brought to collect against
Schenck and BabbitJ. This suit was set
tied by Mr.. Babbitt's giving three notes
one for $5l5, one for $3.50 and one for $545,
to be paid in six, twelve and eighteen
months. These notes were endorsed by
w. w. Gibbs. When these notes were
given DR.. Moore entered into written
agreement that he would endeavor tc
collect the entire amount, 81 900, from
Schenck, and il successful to pay back to
r. o. Babbitt whatever money he paid
upon the three notes. Two of these notes
were paid by Mr. Babbitt, and the third
was the one suit was brought on. for Mr..
BabbiJt refused to pay it.
Before this note came due DR.. Moore
had brought suit against Samuel L.
Schenck and obtained Judgment for
81, 900 and interest, but before the judg-
ment was given Schenck made an as
signment of his property, for certain cred
itors, viz. George Richards and John
and Charles Whitehead, entirely ON it.
ting the claims of DR.. Moore. These
trustees soon afterward entered into an
agreement to sell to w. w. Gibbs the
property that Schenck had transferred tc
them, for the sum of $4,000 and Gibbs
was TO pay $40, 900 down to bind the bar
gain.
When Mr.. Babbitt learned from Mr.
Gibbs of the proposed sale he at once
saw chance for Moore to get his 81, ,0G(
and himself to get back the 1000 he had
paid on the two notes, and he saw Law
yer Linn. and they filed bill in Chan
Gerry and obtained an injunction restrain
ing the trustees from making the sale
until the suit of Moore, then pending,
was ended. The trustees were anxious
to complete the sale so that they might
be able to pay the creditors, and they en-
tered into u stipulation with DR. Moore's
counsel, John Linn, to retain $1,000 OF
the proceeds to wait the final judgment
of the court on DR.. Moore's claim.
With this understanding in writing,
the sale was made and then the trustees
endeavored to effect a compromise with
DIR. Moore and Mr.. Babbitt by paying the
doctor 81, 500 and he to surrender the last
note made by Babbitt to Moore This
compromise Mr.. Babbitt refused because
he had believed he had a fair chance t6
get back the $1,000 he had paid Moore
and then without Babbitt's consent
Moore compromised his claim. receiving
IS, 600, and that added to the $1,000 tina
Babbitt had paid him made the $4,000 hi
was entitled to.
After doing this he brought sui
against Babbitt to collect the $545 fol
which he held Babbitt's note. In othel
words he wanted $545 more that he wa.
entitled to, and for that reason and other.
above given, MIR. Collins asked the jury
to give verdict for Mr.. Babbitt, the de
fendant, which would wipe out the las
note, and compel Or. Moore to pay hin
back the $1,000 that had been paid by de
fendant on the first two notes.
Some little evidence to prove the agree
ments was given by Mr.. Babbitt and also
by DR.. Moore, and then the cose was sub
mitted to the jury to worry over.