The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-11-01
Cont.

case of Catherine Burke, of Bordentowl
township, against the estate of Pete
Hughes was heard. 1t was an action t,
recover $500 for board and nursing GOV
ering period of 81 years.
Catherine and Thomas Burke, her hus
band, in 1878, began to live with Hughe
on his farm. They operated the farm OF
shares until the death of the husband II
1907, when Mrs. Burke decided to sell hel
personal property and remove from the
farm. Hughes persuaded her to remain
however, as he wanted her to continue az
his housekeeper. He promised to leave
everything he owned to her when he died
provided she remained with him, to which
she agreed. and she and Hughes continued
to operate the farm on shares until his death
in 1909. Before his death Hughes handed
Mrs. Burke the deed for the farm, stating
that the place was to be hers after his
death, but the deed had not been changed
to her name. When Hughes died he left
no will, and the administrators got
possession of the deed. Mrs Burke said
she had never received any compensation
for board or nursing, supposing that her
payment would be the farm after his
death. Not getting this she brought suit
for board and nursing.
1t was shown that Mr.. Hughes during
the last few years of his life, was an in
valid and required great amount of care
and nursing, much Of which was ex-
tremely unpleasant work. His under
clothing had to be washed daily, and much
of it and the bedclothes were SO filthy that
they had to be buried.
1t appeared that during the lifetime OF
the husband he and Hughes had number
of settlements, so the defence claimed that
those settlements covered the services of
Mrs Burke. on the ground that wife's
services belong to her husband. This
plea was allowed by the court, so the case
was narrowed down to the claim for board
and nursing from the time of Burke's
death to that of Hughes, period of
slightly more than two years.
The jury returned verdict Of $500 In
favor of Mrs. Burke.
Harold B. Wells, Joseph s. Swain and
Peter Backus represented Mrs. Burke;
James NJ Davis, Robert Peacock and
Frederick ]. White appeared for the es-
tate.
A short time after the verdict had been
rendered new trial was started on behalf
of the plaintiff, as Administrative of her
husbands estate, asking for $500 for
services and board covering the period
ruled out of the case by the court.
The suit of the ]. B. Colt Company, of
New York, against the International Sales
Company, of Browns Mills, to recover on
contract, was started before Judge Lloyd
on Wednesday and ended on Thursday
with verdict for $500 for the plaintiff.
j. NJ. Foster, representing the poultry
company, bought from the plaintiff an
acetylene gas machine for use in the plant
At Browns Mills. After 1t had been in
stalled the machine worked satisfactorily
but it was found to be too small. The
contract stated that the machine was to
be used as an experiment for both light
ng and heating incubators; If not salts
factory, 1t was to be returned. As 1t
proved satisfactory. but too small, Foster
ordered a larger generator. This was
'hipped to Browns Mills and placed In the
plant, but Foster would not permit the
to complete the job and
put the machine In working order, so they
brought suit for the amount of their
claim, 1895, and agreed to throw off $25.
making an even amount of $500, which
The jury awarded them.
Mr.. Marsh, of Newark, represented the
]. B. Kelsey appeared for Fos-
Ter.
The case of Frank Fedrusky, of River
,ide, against the Riverside Metal Com
panY, to recover for injuries received
while he was an employee Of the defend
ant, was settled by the payment of 81
700.
The case of Prof. Walter G. Penhol-
ow against the Bordentown Board of Ed
cation was settled by Judge Lloyd direct
ng the jury to render verdict of $1O5
q favor of Penhollow.
Penhollow brought suit to recover his
Ialary from December 80, 1909, to March
p, 1910, when his contract with the board
1t was shown that the pro-
essor had criminal charges preferred
against him last year and that on Decem-
Der 30 he asked to be released from his
iuties until he could prove himself limo
cent, which request was granted. He
continued in service until January 18th.
In the contract made by him and the
Board of Education there was clause
.equiring thirty days notice to release
either party from the contract. The
Board, on March 10, formally suspended
Penhollcw from further duty, so he
thought he was entitled to pay until that
lime.
The court decided that the plaintiff, af-
Ter being released at his own request, was
not entitled to services that had not been
rendered, as the defendant had not violated
any of the terms of the contract. v.
Claude Palmer represented the plaintiff.
Peter Backus, of Trenton, appeared for
the defendant.
The next case was an action of Mary
E. Fitzpatrick. Administrative of the es-
tate of John B. Foley, against John and
James O'Neil, of Burlington. to recover
5000 due on bond given by them to Fo-
ley in 1905.
The bond was produced and the sub
scribing witnesses thereto were called
John Donley and Dennis P. Murray.
Donley said no names whatever were on
the paper when he signed it at the request
of Foley. Murray said his name on the
paper was not his signature.
After Foley's death, John O'Neil offer
ed to settle the debt by paying $500; that
he did this, not because he had ever in
Cured the Indebtedness or was liable
but to settle his brothers debt
as his brother had no money; that the
brother received all the money called fol-
by the bond.
A number of legal papers with John
O'Neil's signature were offered In evidence
to show that his signature on the bond
was not genuine.
The jury rendered verdict releasing
John and holding lanes for the amount