The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1895-01-16
Court Proceedings.

Court Proceedings.
The case Of The State VS.. George w.
Williamson, for selling liquor in the city
of Lambertville without a license, was
tried at Pennington on Monday last, be-
fore jury, in the Court of Quarter Ses-
sons. The facts were undisputed and
the matter turned entirely upon point
of law. Chlrles A. Sklllman, Esq, and
L. II. Sergeant, Esq, appeared for the
defense and contendcd that the Court had
no jurisdiction that the Excise Board
could be compelled to grant licenses, and
made plea that, as Mr.. Williamson own
ed property and had applied for license,
which was refused, that he was justif-
able. City Solicitor Walter F. Hayhurst
assisted the Prosecutor ard argued earn
estly and ably on the law and in behalf
of good order. The point of law seemed
TO be that the law under which prosecu-
tions of this kind were formerly held was
known as the "Inns and Tave,ns Act, !"
and in 1874 law was passed that this
particular act should not apply to cities
having ordinances for the same purpose.
The act CT 1874 was not general, but
specific, in its reference to the " Inns and
Law " was passed, which regulated license
by Courts, Excise and other boards, and
provided that If any one should sell with
out a license they should be guilty of
keeping disorderly house. In 1893 this
law was amended so that indictment in
such case should not be for keeping dis
orderly house, but "in form for the sale
of liquor according to law" No excep-
tions are made in the law and no reference
whatever to the act of 1874. The case
was closed on Monday afternoon, about 3
o'clock, and the Court adjourned without
charging the jury.
Ou Tuesday morning, al the assembling
of the Court, the Judge announced that,
Court would instruct the jury that they
had no jurisdiction, and accordingly the
jury rendered verdict of "Not guilty,
under the Instructions of the Court. !"
This virtually disposed of all the cases
and the Pre- sccutor promptly entered a
"nol pros in all of them.
The unfortunate condition Of the case
ia that when n verdict of not guilty is rem
dered the Prosecutor has no appeal, while
If the verdict had been guilty the defense
might have moved to set aside the verdict
and thus csted the law. The difficulty
is to get the case before the Supreme
Court until some Court will allow case
to 60 to the jury.
Further prosecution must be before a
Justice OF the Peace.
We copy the following from the Hun
terCion Democrat:
On Monday of last week the case of
Peter Lance ct ais. We. Nathan l.. Apgar
was commenced. This was a suit brought
by remaindermen against the life-tenant
OF farm for damages for having sold
about 8 acres OF timber off Of the farm
At the close of the day the case was ad-
journed TO Wednesday morning, and at
that time, one OF the jurors being sick,
the further trial was abandoned, and the
whole case will be retired at future
| time.
George r. Jefferson VS.. John p. Bait
This was an action for damage for an al
legged assault committed by the defendant
upon the plaintiff. The defendant was
the landlord OF the Union Hotel 10 Flem-
ington, and forcibly elected therefrom the
plaintiff, knocking him down. The de-
PENDANT claimed that the plaintiff, who
had been discharged from his employ
ment, was noisy and dsorderly and re-
fused 10 leave the hotel, and that it was
necessary to use force in ejecting him.
Verdict for plaintiff, $40.
| James Filter vs.. George A. Hackett,
admi. istrator of Elizabeth Petty, decd.
| This was an action to recover an alleged
claim for board and care and attendance
rendered the deceased by the wife of the
plaintiff The defendant claimed tina! any
services which might have been rendered
were gratuitous, the parties being related,
and also that in her lifetime the deceased
gave the plaintiff, or his family, large
part of her estate. Verdict for defendant.
Jerome Wadron vs.. Hillsborough Mu.
tual Fire Assurance Association. This
was an action TO recover for the loss OF
personal property destroyed by fire and
insured under policy of the defendant
company. The policy classified the prop.
erty insured, and the company had ad.
jus,ed the loss and rendered TO the PLAIN.
tiff the sum of $10s72. The only qucs
ton was as to the quantity and value Of
the property destroyed in the various
classes. Verdict for plaintiff, $l25. %.
| -Frostalene, for chapped hands or face
Only 10 cents. Get it at Shamalia's