Bridgeton pioneer., 1894-10-11

WIG oAeCut UTS Oh the late uaOuhu III ul-
ford, to Charles E. Sheppard, also two
other deeds of property embracing the
property In front of which the paving
has been done.
County Clerk VIM, B. Trenchard
was sworn and testified that as far as
the record appears, it shows that Mr..
Sheppard is the owner of the property
ia front OF which the paving was done,
A certified copy of ordinance relating
to paving and curbing, was offered in
evidence.
City Recorder Frank L. Hewitt was
then called. He said that on the 25sh
day of August 1893 he served notice of
paving upon Mr.. Sheppard.
= MIR. Sheppard resisted the offering
of the,evidence, but 1t was admitted
for the present, and the Court stated
that argument upon the matter would
be heard later.
Mr.. Hewitt then called attention to
the resolution passed by Council auth
orizing a committee appointed to lay
the disputed pavement.
A. II. Lupton, brick manufacturer,
was called, and said that Councilman
| Eli 7. Robbins ordered him to lay the
pavement. The work was done at
cost of $45, which he considered a
reasonable and fair price.
GOULD GETS $4,000.
While Mr.. Lupton was upon the
stand the jury 10 the case of Frederick
Gould VS.. the South Jersey Traction
| Company, came In.
"Gentlemen, ,shave you agreed upon
verdict ~ asked the Clerk.
''We have" replied they in concert.
How say you, do you find for the
plaintiff or defendent 2"
The plaintiff" replied the foreman.
''In what sum ?" continued the
Clerk.
Two thousand dollars" replied the
foreman, and there was considerable
! buzzing in the room.
The Court then excused all jurors
not on the panel in the box, until to-
morrow morning at ten o'clock.
at this time an interesting point
was considered. Mr.. Trenchard offered
a certified copy of the apportionment
of the work, which was signed by the
three members OF the Third ward.
This was objected to by Mr.. Sheppard.
Il had been shown by the evidence
that the resolution by Council author
izing the paving in front of Shep-
pard's property, also authorized g.
piece of paving done In the Second
ward, and that the Councilmen of the
Second and Third ward be made a
committee to do the work" Mr..
| Sheppard claimed that the entire six
Counoilmen were the committee and
the apportionment had not been
signed by she entire committee or a
majority of 1t, and was thus an illegal
document.
Col. Potter contended that the uni.
versal custom In these matters was
that Councilmen of each ward were
always Committee to do the work.
The Court gave the matter consider
able serious thought and then finally
said that under the language of the
resolution providing for Committee
of six, he would be obliged to over
rule the apportioment.
Mr.. Trenchard was endeavoring to
offer In evidence mass of papers,
which we're constantly being objected
to by the defence.
At this point Judge Reed said
What question of fact is there in
this case. 1 haven't seen any yet"
There Is none, can see" said Col.
Potter.
We are perfectly willing to allow
this case to be decided by the Court" !"
said Mr.. Sheppard, and Col. Potter
said there was no need of a jury, and
the twelve gentlemen were discharged
from the case, and ordered to come In
with the general panel, in the morn
ing
Then the defence wanted a non
suit. The matter was argued pro and
con by both sides, and the legal as.
poets of the case were still being con-
sidered by the Court when the Court
adjourned.
THURSDAY MORNING.
The case of the City of Bridgeton
against Charles E. Sheppard, was con-
tinued this morning, Mr.. Sheppard Of
fering his defense.
All the editors Of the Bridgeton
papers were called, and produced the
files of their newspapers.
This was done for the purpose OF
showing the publication of the ordin-
ances. Mr.. Sheppard claims that the
charter provides for the publication