The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1894-04-18
AnrIl Court Procesdinrs.

The April term of Court opened on Tues
day of last week, with Justice Albeit pre-
siding.
Justice Albeit said that nothing Of
special importance had beer brought 10
his attention and after cautioning the Jur-
ers to strictly observe their duties and I've
rules governing such bodies, sent them 10
their rooms. The Petit Jury list was
next called, after which the following
licenses were granted:
Geo. w. Hance, Milford, $780, Jshn
Burns, Ringoes, 1925; Austin w. Lowe,
Lebanon, 1925; Horace A. Milburn, Pat
tenburg, 500; CALVIN Hill, Reaville, 1925;
M. H. Ripple, Milford, $3.50; G. E. Tom
son, Pittstown, 500; w. w. Rutt, Little
York, 800; Kate Able, Bloomsbury,
$175; John II. Mellick, Junction, 800;
Edward Humphrey, Glen Gardner, $l75 ;
Bertha Morrison, Aunandale, 1926 VIM.
F. Laudenberger, Junction, 1925; VIM.
Holes, Mt. Pleasant, 500; w. b.
Bovine, Quakertowu, 500; A. DeEIart,
West Portal, 100; Peter Mulvey, Perry
vile, 800; Lander Humphrey, Fleming
ton, $3.50; Samuel H. Mount, Pennington,
$3.50; j. X. Wilson, Sergeantsville, $3.50;
A. S. Case, Three Bridges, 1925; Austin
Clark, New Germantown, $I25 s. w.
Kitchen, Baptisttown, 800.
The first case tried was that Of Freder-
ick Carrard VS.. Nathaniel Niles. This
was an action on contract in which the
plaintiff claimed that in the fall Of '87 an
agreement was made between himself and
the defendant at the latter's bank in New
York, whereby he was to receive mare
from him to be kept by Carrard but no
price for the keep was agreed upon that
he kept the mare and three colts foaled by
her until the fall Of '9l, charging at the
rate of $l0 per month. The defense was
that no contract had been made with the
plaintiff that the defendant had contract
ed with Madame Parret who lived on the
farm with Carrard, aud thai in 1889 he
made an exchange of horses with the
Madame and was no longer liable for its
keep. The jury rendered verdict of
$l79 80 for the plaintiff, after being out
all night.
No. 2. Christopher Smith vs.. @. r. r.
Of N. ]. was settled.
No. 8. Luther Sutton VS.. Sylvester n.
Dilts, ct al, Executors of Sylvester
Neighbor, decd. This was an action To
recover for services rendered aud work
done by John Neighbor, son of Sylves-
ter Neighbor, decd, on the farm occupied
by John at the time of the decease of his
father, Sylvester Neighbor. 1t is claimed
by John that about seventeen years ago,
at the request of his father, he moved on
this farm, under an agreement that he was
to remain with the father on the farm as
long as the father lived, doing the farming
repairing and improving the premises at
his own expense aud then at the death of
the father the farm was to be Johns on
his paying into his estate $4,000. The
son claims that he worked the farm, made
valuable improvements thereon and the
father failed to carry out his part of the
bargain, but on the contrary, disposed of
the farm by will, cutting off John entirely.
The suit is to recover for the work and
improvements put on the farm by John
during the seventeen years that he lived
there, under the agreement as claimed.
John Neighbor assigned the claim to his
son in law, who is the plaintiff.
Verdict in favor OF the plaintiff for
81, 312 65.