Bridgeton pioneer., 1906-11-01

father by E. M. Wallington, on the
Dill head OF the Vineland Grape Juice
70. The wages were shown by the af-
ndavlt to be $40 psr week, which the
afhdavit stated bad been told him sbv
4. M. Wallington was Mr.. Barnes,
wages.
Adam Handle of Elmer, was called.
He is the father of Matthias Handle
who did the shooting, and he said his
recollection is that the items in the
bill were SIS week wages for four
weeks making $50, Doctors bill $25,
carriage hire So making $37 in all.
Mr.. Wallington he said had told him
that Barnes wages was $15 per week.
This ended the plaintiffs case and
Mr.. Walker explaining This grounds,
made motion for a non-suit. The
motion was objected to by Mr.. Bart.
lett.
Judge Endicott took few minutes
to consider the matter before deciding
| on the motion.
Later he announced the motion for
non-suit was refused.
Mr.. Walker outlined the defence as
a general denial of any or all allega-
tions OF the plaintiff as to any agree
ment to pay $40 week to Mr.. Barnes.
The wages was $15 per week and
that was paid him in cash. He de-
MED any agreement to give the plain.
tiff any stock in the corporation for
any part of his wages nor had the
plaintiff ever made any demand for a
certificate of stock, or for claim OF
wages due, until long after leaving
the employ of E. M. Wallington & 90.
These facts were testified to by E. M.
Wallington, the first witness called.
q. L. Wellington, secretary of E.
M. Wallington 6 Co., was the next
witness called. He showed from the
pay roll book, that Barnes wages had
uniformly been $15 week. Never
knew of his being promised stock for
| wages.
After Mr. Carpenter Of New York,
who owned fifty shares of the corpor-
alton of e M. Wallington & %. gave
his testimony, and Mr.. Barnes had
| been recalled in rebuttal, to answer
| one question, the case was brought to
sudden ending in this fashion.
Mr.. Walker" May it please the
I =
court wish to make motion that
the jury be instructed to find a ver-
| dict for the defendant. "
Judge Endicott (Quickly) "The
notions granted without argument.
The Jury will return verdict for the
defendant Clerk take the verdict. -
The jury wasspanelled and the ver-
dict taken, ending the case summarily.
The next case put on for trial was
the Supreme Court Case of Frank O.
Simpkins against William Shramp, in
tort.
Louis H. Miller for the plaintiff, and
| A. II. Swackhamer, of Woodbury., for
the defendant.
| n jury WAS pub LII bI6 UUA.
In opening the case Mr.. Miller said
| they proposed to show that in July
! 1905 Mr.. Simpkins, of Vineland, sold
| to A. E. Knight, of Glassboro, a
profitable bakers oven. Knight gave
$3.50 for the oven, and gave chatteI
mortgage covering the oven to insure
ha nf mir 2
took the oven to his place and set it
up, not attaching it to the real estate.
any more than by stout pipe. Knight
| failed. Shrump assumed possession of
the bakeshop and premises where the
oven was located
Knight gave Simpkins bill of sale
of the oven when he failed.
When Simpkins went to get the
oven Shrump wouldn't allow it to be
removed from the premises but re-
tanned possession of it.
Mr.. Simpkins took the witness
stand and explained the deal with
Knight. Witness said when he got
thei bill of sale Mr.. Shrump was in
possession of the premises where it
was located, and Shrump refused
plaintiff permission to remove the
oven.
| With this witness testimony the
court adjourned for the day.
The baking oven case was resumed
Samuel Creich, a baker, was pms ~
the stand to show that he had been
directed by Simpkins to remove tie
oven and also to testify as tosits valne.
The contention of the defendant is
that the oven in question is par af
the realty, which was purchased at
mortgage sale by the defendant, Wn.
Shrimp. who held the mortgage on
the real estate and foreelosed it.
The plaintiff claim is that the
portable oven was personal property
and not fixkura of Ehe real estate.