The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1901-10-25
THE
LAWYERS
Many Appeals Decided Includ-
ing BOOntOn Dog Case.
Nice Point of Law in Compton-Arm-
strong Case-One License Grants
ed-Decision on Another Re-
served.
COMMON LPEAs.

Since last issue, the following Court
appeals have been tried and disposed
of:
Thomas A. Applin, plaintiff and
appellee, VS.. Charles A. Leonard, was
tried last Thursday and decision re-
served until Monday, when Judge
Vreeland announced verdict for
plaintiff for $S9 "a. Applin rented a
farm, with some COWS from defendant
and claimed there was $780, 49 due
him for milk sold for him by the de-
fendant and not accounted for, while
defendant claimed he had settled with
Applin in full.
Number twenty on the list was next
heard, James A. Speer, plaintiff and
appellee, and Samuel Edelman, Isaac
and Aaron Halprin, defendants and
appellants, an action to recover for
feed sold to defendant Edelman who
claimed part payment. The suit was
for $56. 90 and the amount claimed to
have been paid on account was $14 so
From the papers in the case, state of
demand, book account, &c. lit seemed
that neither was correct, and Judge
Vreeland gave verdict for $27. 45.
Number twenty-five, David M.
Compton, plaintiff and appellant, VS..
Lewis Armstrong, defendant and ap-
pellee, was tried on Friday afternoon.
This case involved nice point OF
law, the facts being practically agreed
upon, viz: what constitutes an accep-
tance of surrender of a lease?
Plaintiff rented house to defendant
for term ending April 1st. On
March 1st defendant moved out, ten
dering keys to plaintiff, who declined
to release defendant from payment.
of rent. Subsequently during March
plaintiff rented the premises in ques-
tion to new tenant, rent to begin
April list, hut new tenant took pos
session of premises at once and moved
in part of his belongings. Defen-
dant claimed this at was an accept
ance of his surrender of the lease and
he declined to pay the rent for March
and suit was brought before justice
where the case was tried before a
jury, verdict of no cause of action
being rendered, whereupon plaintiff
appealed. Charlton A. Reed appeared
for plaintiff and Richard Boardman
for the defendant. Decision was re-
served until November 1st.
The same counsel appeared in the
next case tried, on Saturday morning
last, number nine on the list, Joseph
oakley, plaintiff and appellant, VS..
Mrs. Mary A, Nichols, defendant and
appellee 1t appears from the evid-
ence that one Cook, representing him
self to be member of the firm of
Durling & Cook, sold defendant six
tons of coal. 1t was poor coal, and de-
fendant refused to pay for it unless
some compensation was made, where
upon Cook promised to send down
two tons to make goodt he poor coal.
About two weeks later two tons of
coal were delivered to defendant by
Mr.. oakley wagons, and bill pre-
sented; defendant asserted that she
had never purchased coal of oakley.
and the driver said Cook ordered it
sent down to her. She said that was
to make good some poor coal he had
sent her previously and accepted it,
Plaintiff said at trial that Cook was
his agent and he knew nothing about
previous transaction. Decision that
defendant was not liable given.
The Jury appeals were taken up for
trial on Monday morning and before
the first case was called, Judge Vree-
land announced decision of no cause
for action in the case of Charles H.
Spindler, plaintiff and appellee, VS..
Harrison Vaudeville, defendant and
appellant.
The celebrated case %%of Andrew J.
Riley, plaintiff and appellee VS.. James
McGarrigle, defendant and appellant,
was the first one to be called, with
George G. Runyon for the plainiff, and
Charlton A. Reed for the defendant.
This case was tried before Justice
as far back as March, 1900, resulting
in verdict for the plaintiff of $l13 90,
and defendant appealed, and on the
trial the jury disagreed before. De-
fendant left a pair of horses with
plaintiff to take care of and sell if
he could, and plaintiff SUED to recover
board for horses. The jury gave him
a verdict for Sill. so.
The next cases taken up were those of
James Deyany by Eliza Mccormick
next friend, VS.. William and Sarah
Himelman, and Elizabeth Mccormick
vs. William and Sarah Himelman,
Irving e. Salmon for plaintiffs, and
Ray Dawson for defendants, the same
acts existing in both cases one jury to
try both at same time. The Himel
mans owned dog which, it is alleged
bit Devany, who is a small boy, on
the leg when he went into the yard to
see if they wanted to buy some oil.
Suit was brought for damages by the
boy, and Mrs. Mccormick sued to re-
cover money paid for the services of
a physician. The evidence was very