The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1890-12-17


1t will be observed that the sixteen towns
mentioned are very generally distributed
over our state and must represent very
accurately, by our healthy condition.
Beautiful.
Our beautiful display of fancy goods,
games, toys, books, pictures andsframes
is worth your inspection. Come early,
while they are new, fresh and novel.
dec. 10. A. II. TITUS.
Court Proceedings.
Justice Scudder again presided at the
December term of Court, which was In
session last week. The Grand Jury was
discharged at the Wednesday morning
session, having reported that their labors
were completed, and they had no indict-
ments to present. The following causes
were tried
David G. Sharp VS.. Laura Larue. This
was an action on promissory note made
by the defendant 10 the plaintiff. The
facts were virtually undisputed, and were
about as follows: The plaintiff held the
memorandum check of William A. Larue,
the husband of the defendant, for 1866. SO,
and he was endorser on two protested
notes amounting TO $500, made by VIM.
A. Larue, and held by the Clinton Bank.
The defendant, at the request of the plain
tiff, gave her note to the plaintiff for
81, 355.s6, the amount of her husbands
Indebtedness to him, the check was sur
rendered, and the notes taken out of the
bank by the plaintiff. The defence was
that the defendant being married wo-
man, she could not be held liable upon
her contract, il being a promise to pay
the debt of another. Justice Scudder d.
rected the jury to find for the defendant,
stating that in his opinion the contract of
the defendant was not an original one,
made upon solid consideration, but was
a promise to pay the husbands debt, and
exceptions in the statute making the con-
tracts of married women binding upon
them.
Stires Frilts vs.. Laura Larue. This
suit was very similar to tho preceding one.
The plaintiff held two notes of William
A. Larue, the husband of the defendant,
upon each OF which notes there was an
other name as maker besides that oil
Larue. The defendant gave her note to
the plaintiff for the amount of the two
notes, and thereupon the plaintiff handed
her the notes and she tore them in two
and passed them to her husband. 1t was
insisted that there was distinction aud q
difference between this case and the other,
in that in this case the plaintiff parted
with right of action not only against the
husband, but against other persons, by
the surrender of the two notes, and that
it should be held that the wife in effect
and in fact purchased the two notes OF
the plaintiff, and therefore the contract
was an original one on her part, and not
a promise TO pay the husbands debt.
The jury was waived, and the decision re-
served by the Court.
Samuel b. Pegg VS.. Samuel II. Schenck.
This was an action for damages for an
alleged assault committed by the defend
ant upon the plaintiff. Pegg had sued
Schenck for SANDER, and both parties
were on their way to Court, when Pegg
overlook Schenck just north of Larison's
Corner. II was claimed that in some
words which passed between the parties
threats were made by Schenck that he
would mash Pegg, and that Schenck zig
Jagged a-ross the road and prevented
Pegg from going around, and finally got
out OF his wagon and seized Pegg's horse,
and was only prevented from doing Pegg
an injury by the appearance Of third
party on the scene. The defendant claim
ed that the plaintiff threatened to run
over him, attempted to do SO, and that
the wagons colided and he was thrown
out, and then it was that his son, who
was with him, seized Pegg's horse for the
purpose of preventing more damage, and
that whatever trouble there was, was
caused by the plaintiff himself. Verdict
for plaintiff, $25.0o.
Gilbert Trimmer VS.. Andrew 9. Cregar.
This suit is now being tried. II is an
action for damages for an alleged diver
sion of water course, whereby the lands
OF the plaintiff are overfowed, and is the
same cause tried at the last term, and in
which the jury disagreed.
Because OF the fact that Judge Scudder
excused Two of the Grand Jurors from
service in that body, many people seemed
TO think that there was some objection
entertained by the Court TO them. Not at
all. The two gentlemen were excused at
their own request, which was made on
account of sickness. H1,sterdon DEM
.The world grows weary nraisjno men