The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1895-12-18
Denennhar Court.


Court and without jury.
No. 2, Moses S. Burd VS.. Central r.
r. of N. j. This was suit for damages
claimed TO have been sustained by the
plaintiff some time since under the follow
ing circumstances. He was driving along
the defendant company's track on the
highway in Junction and an engine stand
lug thereon blew fl steam in such way
as to frighten his horse, causing it to
plunge, kick and runaway, injuring the
leg OF the plaintiff in serious manner.
The Court uonsuited the plaintiff on mo-
ton of counsel for the defense, upon the
ground that negligence on the part of the
company in operating the engine causing
the accident, had not been proven suf1
GENTLY for the case to go TO the jury.
No. 8, Harrison Carver ct al, partners
as Carver & Williams, VS.. Martha Zeigler,
contract, was settled.
No. 4, Elisha Shower vs.. Lueus A.
VOORHEES,, contract, went of for the term
by consent.
No. 8, Patrick Corrigan vs. Patrick Ma
lone, contract, off for the term.
The next case to be tried was that Of
Belle Thatcher, trading as r. Thatcher &
Son, VS.. Mary B. Allen. This was new
trial, the case having been before the Su-
preme Court on Writ of Error, the form
er verdict against the defendant being re-
versed. The action Is brought to recover
the amount of milk bill of some $3S7 of
long standing, the principal question be-
ing who composed the firm of II. Thatch-
er & Son during the time of the transac-
tim. Belle Thatcher claimed that she
was the firm, having bought the interest
of r. Thatcher & Sen in 1879, and that
therefore the amount sued for was due
her and not to the firm of r. Thatcher 50.
Son. The defence claimed that the milk
account was to be applied on q judgment,
by an agreement with r. Thatcher & Son,
and that the amount claimed did not pay
the judgment and therefore nothing was
due the plaintiff. The jury after remain
ing ont ell night returned verdict of
$l8s. 90 in favor of the plaintiff.
No. on the Circuit list was an action
brought by John B. Case on lien claim
against j. Wallace Hoff. Mr.. Hoff bought
farm near Croton some time since and
bought lumber OF the plaintiff which was
used in constructing buildings thereon.
Mr. Hoff recently sold the farm without
paying for the lumber and the validity of
the lien filed by Mr.. Case was the sub
ject of the action, the defence being that
The lien had not been filed and prosecuted
as the statute directs. The Court instruct
ed the jury TO find for the plaintiff as fol
lows: A general juagment oil 1910
against the defendant and special judg-
ment OF 1904 as against the buildings
| alone.
No. 6, William II. Baker, Receiver of
Stockton 6 Allen, VS.. Catharine r. Stock
ton. This was an action in replevin. On
March 26lh last, the goods of the firm of
Stockton & Allen, hardware merchants in
Clinton, were sold by the receiver. In
| the store at the time OF the sale were near
y 5000 peach baskets which Catharine
| r. Stockton, the defendant, claims she
bought with the other stock and took pos
session of the same. The plaintiff says
the baskets were reserved at the time of
the sale owing to suit then pending in
which these baskets were in litigation
and that the defendant had no right TO
take them, and in order to get them again
the Receiver replevined the goods and
the suit is 10 settle the question of owner
ship OF the baskets. Verdict for plaintiff.
Alfred Wanamaker v. George w. Moore.
This was an action of replevin to recover
possession OF a heavy wagon built for
carting stone blocks The plaintiff claim
ed that he had purchased the wagon at a
chattel mortgage sale made by Henry G.
Holcombe, MORTGAGE, against one Alb
bolt, mortgagor. The defendant claimed
that the wagon in dispute was not en-
braced 10 the chatte mortgage, but that
the wagon named therein was an old one
which Holcombe had sold to Abbott, and
which, together with team of horses,
was the consideration for the mortgage
Verdict for defendant.
Henry s. Yawger v. Annie g. Shurts.
This was an action for damages brought
by the lessee OF peach orchard against
the lessor, upon the claim that the lessor
had sold the farm upon which the peach
orchard was located, and deprived him Of
the benefit of bis lease. The plaintiff was
nonsuited for the reason that it did not
appear from the evidence that be had
been prevented from exercising his rights
under the lease.
Charles j. Botsford v. Lehigh Valley
RAILROAD Company. This is an action
for damages for alleged injuries received
by the plaintiff while crossing the tracks
OF the Pennington Branch Of the Lebigh
Valley Railroad at the Junction. At the
conclusion of the plaintiff Is case non
suit was ordered by the Court for the rea.
son that 1t appeared that the plaintiff
ncgligently contributed to the accident.
All the best brands OF smoking and