The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-05-17
C0dft.
Court.
At Tuesdays session of court there was

MA hallrOaQ company. Wn1le cross1n
: the tracks at Mssonville the plaintiff
/ team was run into. The horses were xii
ed and the wagon demolished.
In his suit against, Wilbur F. Sadler
Jr., receiver of the Camden and Trento
Railway Company, Pierre Dunlop wa
awarded $500 damages as the result 0
injuries which he received while goiny
from his work at Riverside to his hom
In Riverton. AS the trolley which b
boarded was crowded, Dunlop sat on tn
platform with his legs hanging on tn
step. At the Pennsylvania railroad sta
ton the car jumped the track and tn
young man was pinned between the troll
ley and fence post. The injured mai
was taken to the Cooper Hospital, Cam
den. Physicians are uncertain as to tn,
! probability of the wound healing proper
ly.
Bernard ]. Willis got verdict agains
George Conover, near Bridgeboro. TIL,
former was tenant on Conover's farm
and the latter claimed that Willis ha6
taken hot bed sash and some seeds. In
the Justices court Conover got a verdict
for 500.
In his action against Henry Tesnow, OF
Riverside, to recover $40 claimed to be
due him for hauling sand, George W.
Maute was non-suited.
In the appeal case of Harry T. Allen,
of Vincentown, who sought to recover a
claim from Clara r. Ross, the attorneys
in the case were requested to present
briefs and authorities in a weeks time
when the court will decide the issue.
Allen rented house from Mrs. Ross. He
had some necessary repairs made to the
heater and when he paid his rent deduct
ed the amount. The plaintiff said that
Josiah y. Huston, agent for Mrs Allen,
had ordered Allen to haye the repairs
made, but this Huston denied
Ambiguous clauses In contract exist
ing between Albert W. Dresser and Sam
uel R. Gilbert, of Burlington, resulted in
a non-suit, and Ernest Watts, counsel for
the plaintiff, will take out writ of GER
tiorari The action of Dresser, a real es-
tate agent, was to recover 800, the COM
mission agreed upon for the sale of Gil
bert's farm. The place was sold by Gil
bert, but under the contract Dresser in
sists that he has valid claim for the
commission.
The suit of A. w. Lofland, of Marlton,
to recover $211.15 ON promissory note
given May 90, 1909, by Noah Williams,
colored, of Lawnside, Camden county, in
payment for a horse, was tried on Wed
nesday, resulting in verdict for the
plaintiff for the full amount of his claim
The defence was that Williams being
an ignorant man who could neither read
nor write, was persuaded by Lofiand to
take horse on trial with the understand
ing that the animal could be returned in
year ii not satisfactory and another one
taken in exchange at the same price. The
note for payment of the horse was signed
in the presence Of G. S. Andrews, who
was called in as witness to the transact
ton. Williams was to break the horse to
automobiles and get it fat before return
ing. This was not done, and when the
animal was offered back at Collingswood
Lofand would not accept 1t. Williams
said he did not know he was signing
note, thought 1t was only paper to show
that he had the horse. He was to receive
1910 if he took the horse back, and sup
posed he was to get that amount for keep
ing and breaking the animal.
On cross-examination witness admitted
that he signed the note After Lofand
had brought two suits in the matter, Will
liams promised to pay him $50 in Deem
Der. and when Lofiand went to get the
money it was not paid.
William M. Williams, a Justice of the
peace, heard Lofand tell Williams that
his note was past due and asked him if
he had any money. The horse was not
what Williams wanted and he asked Lof-
land to take it back. The latter said he
would not ask for the money again but
would 20 TO law.
While in wagon with Lofland in De-
cember, Peter Benson heard Williams say
he had no money but he would see LOT
land later and give him some.
Mr.. Lofand said Williams wanted to
buy horse If he could get one to suit
him, and he was shown all the animals in
tho otohlo drivfpr oinrla and double -
hind some of them. He selected Que for
$205 with discount added for six months.
There was an agreement that If the horse
was in good condition year hence LOT
land would take the animal back and
Williams could have another at the same
price. When it was offered back the ami
NAL was not worth $50, being thin and in
very poor condition. Lofand said when
the horse was sold it was full Of spirit in
good shape to work on farm, and wit.
ness told Williams the paper he signed
was note.
Shreve Anderson said the horse was in
poorer condition when returned than it
was at the time of purchase. This testi-
mony was corroborated by Edwin Rogers.
The next case to be tried was the action
on contract for damages against the Hud-
son and Middlesex Telegraph and Tele-
phone Company by three plaintiffs. The
matter was compromised, and by direc-
ton of court these verdicts were render
ed: William Potts, $51 49,; William Brad
dock, $204.00; Gibbs Braislin, $2s1.1S.
Then followed a trial of considerable
interest. involving suit for forgery, in
which father had his son arrested and
committed to the county jail.
The plaintiff was Amos K. Ashby, of
Burlington. He had sold grain to Roland
Perkins, farmer living near Beverly,
and as result Of the transaction Ashby
had three notes aggregating 1857. 12, CIV
en- by Roland and which purported to
bear the endorsement of s. Budd Perkins
When these notes became protested Ashby
paid them and then brought suit against
the endorser. In a suit at Moorestown,
Roland swore that the endorsement was
the signature of his father.
Several months ago Roland Perkins
then a motorman, was killed in Camden
by the collision of two trolley cars.
Those familiar with the writing of s.
Budd Perkins testified that the signature
on the notes was his. These witnesses in