Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1904-10-06

vessel sank in the river.
Mr.. Lummis had already deposited
the check in Cumberland National
Bank for collection. Before the check
had returned to the bank on which
drawn, for payment, payment had
been stopped ON the check, because the
vessel with the corn had sunk the
night previous.
The question to be determined, it
was admitted on both sides, was as to
whether title to the corn had passed
before the vessel sunk or not, or
whether there had been an exception
before the vessel sank.
Mr.. Lummis was put upon the stand
and explained the condition OF the
boat the day the corn arrived in Mill.
vile, and the day the check was given
and the bill of lading surrendered.
The vessel and cargo was then all
right.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Lummis'
testimony, Mr.. Bacon, for the Mill
vile Manufacturing Company, moved
for non-suit, on the grounds of there
having been no delivery Of the grain.
He claimed that it was the duty to
deliver on the wharf, and he showed
authorities.
Judge Swayze declined to non-suit,
and Mr.. Bacon was given an excep-
tion.
The case before the Supreme Court
which was started in the morning ses-
sion was continued until in the early
afternoon
Mr.. U. B. Bean, of the company,
was put on the stand to prove that the
corn had not been delivered to the
company by Mr.. Lummis. He refused
to accept the corn after the boat sank,
and SO notified Mr.. Lummis.
E. B. Langley testified that he saw
the sunken boat, the ssCarrie Gar.
rett. = Never saw boat sunk there
before.
The case rested.
The Judge charged the jury and it
retired.
After the jury had withdrawn, Mr..
Bacon, in specifying his exceptions
further, said that his insistment was
that it was the duty of the seller to
discharge the boat-deliver the cargo
upon the wharf-that the captain was
the agent of the consignor to deliver
the grain.
The jury was set for to return and
the Judge charged them over again
thus: 1t was The duty of Lummis to
deliver the cargo at Millville, and to
deliver it on the wharf, but il Mr..
Bean had assumed this duty to unload
the boat, as intimated in Mr.. Lummis'
testimony, then Mr.. Lummis was re-
lieved of that obligation The jury
retired again and then memorial SER
vice were gone into in the death of
the late VIM. Benthall. Judge Trench
ard, on the part of the Bar Associa-
ton. after a'short and feeling eulogy
of the deceased, read resolutions of
respect adopted by the Bar Association,
which were offered. The resolutions
were seconded by Mr.. Logue in good
speech, and the Judge made the neces-
sary order for their disposition.
tuesday Afternoon.
Later the jury rendered a verdict
for Mr.. Lummis in the sum of.
$l763.70 This was the amount of the
claim with interest, less sum which
had been previously properly paid out
for freightage.
The first case called this afternoon
was that of Mary johnson Stanley
against Isaac Whilden Moore, and a
jury was put in the box.
Judge E. A. Armstrong appeared
for Mr.. Moore and Judge Howard Car
row for Mrs. Stanley.
This is an action to recover $3.50 on
contract, with interest from 1909.
This is concerned with the sale of a
property on Pacific avenue, in Atlantic
City. Mrs. Stanley purchased the
property Of I. Whilden Moore in Octo-
Der, 1901, for which she was to pay
$624S. She Has then Mrs. Mary John
son, and has since married Mr..
Stanley. Receipts shown disclosed
payments aggregating about $500, the
last payment being about $400.
1t was contract to sell, and when
Mrs. Stanley called to see about get
ting deed and executing bond and
mortgage, Mr.. Moore told her he did
not own the property, and she had
been SO long about it that the party
owning the property would not carry
out the agreement. She asked then to
have the $1,000 which she had paid to
him returned to her. He said he
could not do that. Now this suit is
1111oo1-o->1-eA~4
4 -