The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-11-02

4
Q The case of Oscar E. Roberts, colored
d against Dr. E. Roberts Richie, of Moores
4 town. an action for damages for false ar
s rest, was tried on Tuesday. Roberts had
r been employed by DR.. Richie as a genera
4 utility man. Roberts became dissatisfied
: and resigned. A few hours after he had
gone he was arrested for stealing some
coats belonging to thedoctor. He had not
stolen the garments for they were found
In the barn, where Roberts said they were
after his arrest The issuing of the war
rant was then found to have been a mis-
take.
: The defence was that there was reason
able ground for the arrest of Oscar, and
that there was no malice on the part of
the defendant.
The jury rendered a verdict of $25 in
favor Of plaintiff.
The next case was that of Henry NJ
Lincoln against the Royal Insurance Co.,
to recover $3.50 alleged ito be due on a
policy of insurance issued by the defend
ant company on house and building on
q farm at Snyder's mill in Medford town
ship which were destroyed by fire. The
defendant company paid $1,055 in settle
ment of the claim, and Lincoln's allega-
ton is that the settlement was of no
account, as it was obtained by fraudulent
representation.
After the plaintiffs opening, counsel for
darnondod nnpc,1ff ho
ground that the claim had been settled
and a release given by the plaintiff. The
court ordered a nonsuit.
The case of John ]. Smith against
Michael Flynn was then taken up, suit
to recover damages for defamation of
CHI aracter Last March Flynn's son
was found dead along the railroad
track below Moorestown. There
was considerable mystery about the death.
The defendant, on numerous occasions,
made accusations that Smith wasl con-
nected with the death, and had called him
murderer and robber. Smith denied
that he was In any way connected with
the affair and had not been arrested there
for.
The defense was that there was a rumor
that Smith was concerned in the death of
Flynn. and that whatever Flynn had said
was warranted by the stories he had heard,
and which ne did not originate.
The jury awarded $500 damages to
Smith.
The suit of George B. Morris against
George w. Terrell was to have been tried
at this term, but the parties got together
last week and Terrell agreed to pay $50 in
settlement of the matter, which was &C.
cepted George B. Evans was counsel for
Morris; A e. Burr for Terrell.
On Wednesday jury was impaneled to
hear the suit of Frank Fedursky against
the Riverside Metal Co. to recover damages
for personal injuries received while in the
employ of the defendant company at
Riverside. The plaintiff is foreigner
and unable to speak word of English.
He was brought into court in roller
chair, being unable to walk on account of
his injuries.
The testimony of the attending phYsi-
clan, DR.. Lambert, was to the effect. that
the injuries were of disabling character,
but it was possible that there might be a
recovery ultimately.
The testimony of the plaintiff was that
while he was employed at the factory OF
the defendant number of pigs of metal
fell off truck on which he was working
and crushed one of his legs so that he has
been unable to walk or perform any of his
usual duties. The plaintiff, however,
failed to show negligence on the part of
the defendant, and was non-suited.
The next case was that of Joseph Her
bert against Mary Southland to recover
the value of horse sold by the defendant,
which failed to correspond with the guar
antee given at the time of the sale. 1t
was in evidence that at the Southland sale
the mare In question was put up as 10
years and In foal by Dragon. MIR. Her
bert was very DESTROYS of having Drag |
on colt, SO he bought the mare for $685.
AS time went on the colt failed to mater
ialize, so Mr.. Herbert began to make in
quiries and learned that the mare was "a |
years of age, as was testified by several
witnesses. The defence was that there
had been no deliberate misrepresentation |
as to the age Of the animal as far as they |
were concerned, and they gave the i'm
formation they had received in that re-
spect.
The jury rendered verdict in favor of
the plaintiff for $125.