The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1907-02-19
Court.

Judge Lloyd held court yesterday anC
disposed of two cases, another being un
finished when court adjourned.
The first case was that of l. L. Register
& Son VS.. Edward F. Walker. The latter
lives at Riverton and was sub-agent
under Register, who represents the Equit.
able Life Insurance Company. Walker
issued policy for $50 900 on the life OF
d. D. Scott. The premium was So, 740,
one-half-$ 81, 370-going to Walker as his
commission. He also borrowed $400 from
Register on note. Later it transpired that
Walker had misrepresented the matter to
Scott and the policy was Cancelled.
| Register returned the amount of premium
and then brought suit against Walker.
There was no defence. and a verdict for
81, 9S3 was rendered in favor of the
plaintiff
The next case was that of Henry Freck
VS.. the Pennsylvania Railroad. The
plaintiff was caught by a train in West
Palmyra and one horse was killed and his
wagon and harness were destroyed. He
claimed 1899. so damages. The defence was
that proper precaution was not used in
crossing the tracks. The jury returned
verdict of 1876.
Herbert A, Rice VS.. Dr.. r. G. Barring
ton, was next called. This was to re.
cover $3.50. IA, amount of note given in
payment of a policy of insurance.
Txuo man ballad ,non H.
and asked him to take insurance. They
suggested that he become an agent in the
Mutual Reserve Insurance Company
The scheme was for him to send in names
to a certain amount of insurance and the
premiums on the business were to offset
the premium on his own policy. He was
to give a note for the amount which the
representative assured the doctor would
not be collected in full when due, but
would be renewed, giving year for pay
ment and was TO eventually be cut in half
by the premiums ON new business sent in
When the note became due, however, it
turned up in the hands of third party-a
DR.. Rice-and DR.. Darlington refused to
pay it on the ground that the agreement
made with him had been disregarded
DIR. Rice said he knew nothing about |
this latter claim. He had bought the note
in good faith and should not be damaged |
as he was an innocent third party The |
defence showed that Dr. Rice is a dentist |
and that Roger Burns, the person to whom |
Dr. Darlington gave the note, was being |
treated by him and offered the note for |
SALE The defence claimed that Rice is |
not an INNOCENT third party, but had been |
warned that the notes being secured by |
Burns were all on Misrepresentation r. |
q. Dunn, of Burlington, told that he gave |
a note to Burns and that Rice purchased |
it and when it became due Dunn refused |
TO pay it for the same reasons advanced |
by Dr. Darlington. He settled it, how
ever, by paying 800 cash and giving a |
three months and six months note for |
the balance. Other notes were offered |
showing that Rice had endorsed every one
of them-evidence of collision between |
him and Burns.
AT the conclusion of the defence Fred |
A. Rex, who appeared for Rice, asked the |
Judge to direct the jury to render yer.
dict for the plaintiff, but the court said |
there were some new andinteresting ques- |
tions presented in this case and he did not |
feel that he could so direct He request
ed the lawyers to step into the Judges
room where Mr.. Rex's motion was argued.
Messrs. E. P. Budd and V. Claude Pal
mer speaking for DIR. harrington.
This morning the Judge directed tn e
Jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff.