The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1908-06-02
Court.

Marter YerkeS, real estate broker Q
Philadelphia, against the Ironsdes Pot
terry Co., of Bordentown, to recove
$500. being the amount of commission
alleged TO be due the plaintiff for max
ing a sale of the plant of the defendan
company to the Globe Pottery Co. TIL
testimony showed that the property hat
been in the market for some time wLel
ii was placed in Yerkes' hands, and tina
he soon afterwards sold it for $150,000
A contract had been prepared by which
the Ironsides Pottery Co. was to pay I
commission of five per cent, but thi
was not signed, the officers of the com
pany remarking that 1t was not neces
sary; that they were men of honor, and i
Yerkes made the sale they would pay hin
the commission. After the sale was made
Yerkes made an unsuccessful effort tt
secure a settlement of his claim. He
thereupon began the suit.
At the conclusion of the PLAINTIFFS case
counsel for the defense moved to non suit
on the ground that an oral contract fol-
the sale of real estate could not be en-
forced under the statutes Of New Jersey
Notwithstanding such contracts were
recognized under the laws of Pennsyl
vania.
The court granted the non suit.
81. II. Voorhees, for the plaintiff; James
Buchanan for the defense.
A jury was next impaneled to try the
suit of the Booth Packing Co., of Balti
more, against Jarrett M. Brock, farmer
of Florence township. This was an action
on contract. The defendant signed an
agreement to deliver to the plaintiff the
entire crop of Keiffer pears grown on his
farm during the year 1907 at the price
of IS cents per basket of "a lbs. When the
crop was ready for market Brock sold
them to some one else. 1t was shown that
at the time he sold these pears in October
the market price for pears was very much
higher than the contract price. The
agent of the plaintiff, Mr.. Thomas, testi-
fed that Brock never delivered any pears
under his contract, and when the demand
was made on him his only answer was
| he had sold them to some one else.
There were $500 baskets of pears in
Brooks orchard. OF these one-third
would not be up to the standard as spec
fled in the contract.
! Freight agent Stokely, of Stevens
station, said Brock shipped two carloads
of pears on Octobey 18th. These cars con-
tanned about 1000 baskets. About October
18th three more carloads were shipped by
Brock.
The defense was that there were only 200
baskets of pears on the farm that could
have been delivered under the contract in
question. and that the market price was
not over 20 cents per basket, but the testi-
mony showed that Stewart, the commits
sion man, paid as high as 35 cents per
basket for some he bought.
The verdict was in favor of the plain
tiff for $3.50.
The next case taken up was that of
David Brown, colored. against David B.
Bruce of Mount Laurel, to recover twelve
shoats, valued at s45. John Still, who
was tenant on the Bruce farm, sold the
shoats to Brown, and they were replevin
ed by Bruce, who declared that Still did
not own them.
In his testimony David Brown said the
shoats were brought to his place early one
morning in January This was before day
light. He denied hearing Bruce say he was
the owner of the shoats, but admitted know
ing that Still had previously been arrested
for selling poultry off the farm that did not
belong to him.
At this juncture on motion of Mr.. Hillman
the jury rendered verdict in favor of the
defendant.
The replevin suit of george w. Brown
against L. E. Ward was then moved. Sam
uel A. Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff,
Aaron E. Burr for the defense. The defend
ant occupied farm owned by the plaintiff in
Chester township and on leaving the farm
took away with him cutunder truck wagon
belonging to the plaintiff.
George w. Brown testified that he is the
owner of farm at Lenola, near Moorestown,
which last year was occupied by Ward Wit
ness bought and paid for the truck wagon in
question and produced receipt to prove it.
Ward was farming the place on shares. De-
tendant refused to give up the wagon when
demand was made on him. Witness denied
having said he bought the wagon for Ward
and the latter could pay for it out of the re-
ceipts of the farm.
Joseph H. Matlack, a neighbor of Brown,
said he went with the plaintiff when he made
demand on Ward for the wagon. Ward
didn't then claim the wagon was his, he
merely said he had locked it up and would
not surrender it.
The defense was that Ward was the owner
of the wagon.
| Clarence Ward swore that he had broken
his own wagon hauling manure for Brown
and that at the latter's suggestion witness
bought the wagon in question. AS witness
Brown to advance the amount and afterwards
offered to repay him but he refused to accept
it saying he wanted the wagon himself.
Mrs. Mary Ward was present when
her husband settled with Brown in the fall
and the latter said he wanted the wagon him
self and refused to accept an offer of 500 for
it.
Mrs. Armstrong said she heard Mr.. Brown
say he had bought the wagon for Ward and
had given him his own time to pay for it.
Charles Green, formerly blacksmith at Eel
lowship said he repaired the wagon in ques-
ton and it was then worth about $50.
The jury rendered verdict in favor of the
plaintiff.
The suit of Frank Geyer against George A.
Swift, Jr., was next tried This was an action
in replevin to recover certain machinery used
in tie manufacture of rugs at Bordentown.
The machinery was stored in machine shop
on which storage charges were to be paid to
Swift A part of these charges were paid in
cash, and a note given for the remainder.
The machinery was held by Swift as security
but he refused to surrender 1t when the note
was paid. Geyer formerly had factory at
Freehold but removed to Bordentown and
from there to Trenton.
The jury rendered verdict in favor of the
defendant
new custom was inaugurated by Judge
Lloyd on Tuesday. When the crier makes
his proclamation by which court is opened in
the morning all the members of the Bar as
we'll as the spectators are obliged to remain
standing until the crier has completed his
task.
non suit was granted in the suit of w. j.
Evans, against William J. Evans and Joseph
K. Evans on the application of Israel Rob
erts.
The appeal case of Howard Allen against
Edward Pullen was tried before Judge Horn
er. 1t was alleged that the horse had been
sold to the defendant, but the latter insisted
that he had only taken the animal on trial
A verdict was rendered in favor Of the plain
tiff for SIPS.
A jury was next irnpaneled to try the case
of the Booth Packing company against Sam