The Monmouth inquirer., 1896-03-26
Remanded for sentence later.

Plpau bOu guilty. TO adultery with
Mamie Hawkins, Jan. oath, in Free
hold. A. A. Chambers was appoint
y ed 70 defehd him April 8th. Re-
81 manded until that date.
Appeal 81, of George b. Herbert VS.
8 Ernest Vogel, was tried before the
"a Court without q jury. This action
lt was brought by Vogel against Her
bert, to recover in an action of tort,
Tor damage done to him by the dog
OF Herbert biting him in the arm and
upon the hand. The evidence was
# TO the effect that Vogel was going
past lot on which the dog was ly-
ing and that the dog sprang at him
ana bit him In two places, rendering
him unable to work at his trade as
Il shoemaker for three weeks, and
causing him to be attended by a
physician for over seven weeks. He
denied having teased the dog or of
/ having thrown a stick at him The
defense claimed that the dog was
very gentle and kind animal and
would not have bitten Vogel if he
had not doMe anything to him. The
facts in the case seem to develope
that the dog was eating a bone and
that Vogel thought it was one of his
1 chickens and accordingly went to
drive bim away when the dog sprang
4 at him and bit him. The Court re-
served decis 1on. H. HI. Wainright
for Vogel and S. A. Patterson, for
Herbert.
Appeal62, of Joseph A. Osborn, ap-
pellant, VS. The Mayor & Council of
the Borough of Spring Lake, was
next tried. This suit was brought to
recover q penalty under an ordi-
nance passed by the Mayor and
s Council of the Borough o. Spring
Lake, making hack drivers and the
like, TO have licenses and their wag
ons numbered The ordinance and
the publication thereof were admit
ted by z. w. Arrowsmith Sr.. conn
sci of Osborn and the Borough pro-
ceeded to prove their case. The de-
fendant stated that he had four wag
ons just the same make that were
run between July 25th, and Aug. 9th,
and that it was impossible to tell
them apart The Court reserved its
decision. J. f. Hawkins for Bor-
ough and E. w. Arrowslnith Sr., for
X Osborn
4 Appeal SO, of Joseph H. Bryan,
\ appellant, VS. James i. White Il Co.,
6ppellees, was next tried before the
4 Court. This action was brought by
White Il Co., against Bryan, to re-
cover $50 upon an agreement or con
tract entered into by Bryan with
l White & Co., for some medical books
Il &c. George w. White, a member of
the firm of James II. White & Co,
said that they had received the order
OF Bryan and had shipped the books
to him as requested Bryan denied
having received them. The Court
reserved its decision Thomas P.
ay Tor White a Co. and J, II. HRw-
I II 4 Il ilss s 1s,r d4feIIlssafs 81
Monday, March 23rd When APP
peal SO, of George Woods Jr., appel
laut, VS. Kate Pool, appellee, was call
ed Joseph Reilly stated that he had
an affidavit in his possession to the
effect that witness was not present.
Thomas z. Fay, attorney for Mrs.
Pool, stated that the plaintiff would
admit the evidence which the absent
witness would swear TO and asked
that the case be tried, stating that it
had been put off too prior terms.
The affidavit having co1for:ned with
the rules of the Court, the case was
ordered off for the term upon pay
ment of costs.
Appeal 81, of Mary A. Doran, ap-
pellant, VS. Carl Peterson, appellee,
was put off for the term upon pres
entatIon OF certificate TO the Court.
Alfred Walllng Jr., ana Joseph Rell-
iy are counsel
No response was given TO appeal
II, OF Arthur H. Colby, appellee. VS.
Caroline u. Fisher, appellant. upon
contract
The appeal case l0l, OF OlIyer Paw
ley, appellant VS. William b. Wills
Jr., appellee, was responded TO IN be
half OF Willis by Judge Waillng when
called and no one responding for
Pawley, the Court stated that he
would be entitled to a motion at ten
i O'Clock.
Appeal III, OF Mary j. Allen, ap-
pellant, VS. William k. Warwick Jr,
appellee, was announced ready upon
both sides and was moved for trial.
The sult was brought by warwick TO
recover $l6 balance due upon
note give. by Mrs. Allen TO nun for
household articles and repairing &e
for S25 Counsel for Mrs. Allen stat
ed that they admitted the signature
! to the note and he stated that the
verdict given below was for $l1 the
justice having deducted payment of
= \, ri l,sal 4 inf