The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1918-05-07
Civil CnnrtCases

suits last week. The first case wal
that of the Board of Freebooter,
against P. A. Hsnnsssy. This was ar
action to recover damages for the com
pletion of a contract. Hennessy had
the contract, in 1912, to build bridge
over the .Assiscunk creek at Burling
ton. Soon after the work was begun il
was discovered that piling would be
necessary under the foundations. Hen.
messy claimed that no mention of pil.
ing was made in the contract, and that
ne should be allowed extra compen-
sation therefor. The county engineer
claimed that the contract specified all
work necessary to complete the struc.
ture.
Hennessy failed to 60 ahead with the
contract SO the board OF freeholders
took the job in hand and had another
contractor complete it. The present
suit was to recover Nlosses incurred by
the county. The jury returned YER
dict for 81, 800 in favor of the county.
This was the second trial of this case.
AT the former trial Hennessy was the
plaintiff, asking profits on the work
that had been taken away from him,
Hennessy lost out, and the county
Immediately put in counter claim
for per diem forfeiture for failure to
complete the work, and verdict of
$4,000 was returned against Hennessy.
This verdict was appealed to the high
er courts and the award set aside upon
the ground that stormy days had been
included, which was an error.
County Solicitor Peacock and the
former County Solicitor, James M. Da-
Wis, represented the county. ".
Claude Palmer and Peter Backes APP
peard for Hehnessy.
The case of Merritt Reed against
Francis Klingler was taken up before
Judge Carrow on Thursday. George
Nj. Bacon represented the plaintiff;
Robert Peacock appeared for the de-
fendant.
This was an action to recover dam
ages for the loss of services of plain
tiff's daughter, Ellen, by reason of the
birth and care of child. 1t was claim
ed that the defendant was the father
of the infant.
The testimony showed that Klingler
called upon Miss Reed at her home a
number of times and was paying at
tention to her. She testified that he
was the father Of her child.
The defence alleged that it was
case of blackmail; that other young
men were calling on her at the same
time, and that he was being made the
goat
The jury, after being out all night,
and was discharged.
The cases of John ID. johnson
against John p. Hutchinson and
others, and Benjamin Deacon against
John p. Hutchinson and others were
tried together.
This was an action to recover on an
agreement relative to the sale of the
Manhasset hotel, Seaside Park. The |
two plaintiffs and John P. Hutchinson
Thomas T. Nelson, Thomas w. Sim
mott, Herbert R. Crowell, Joseph Cross, |
Joseph Richards, Joseph T. Sullivan
and Charles B. Coles, ten in all.
maro tho hopAboIdora Of Az
owning the hotel. Each man held
bonds to the amount of 300. The
bonds we're secured by mortgage on
the property.
AS the hotel did not pay and had
floating indebtedness
of about $4,000, an agreement was en-
tered into by the bondholders to sell
the property.
This agreement, signed by all the
bondholders, stipulated that they
should sell the real estate at public
sale and divide the proceeds prorata
after deducting the floating debt. III
the bondsmeh had to buy in the pro-
perty at the sale, to protect themselves,
then each of the holders agreed to put
up his pro rata share of the floating
debt of $4,000 and clean the slate.
The agreement also provided that in
case of the property being bought in,
then bondholder had the privilege of
selling his bond for the share of the
proceeds of the sale, less his share of
the outstanding debt.
The sale took place and the bond
holders had to buy the property. The
bid was $31, 900.
After the sale meeting of the bond
holders was called to reorganize the
company in order to get rid of holders
of common stock. This was accom-
plished, and new organization, the
Manhasset Company, was formed, and
took title to the property. The plain
tiffs, Johnson and Deacon, denied hav-
ing entered into any reorganization
agreement, and brought suit to recover
the pro rata value of their bonds, as
fixed by the sale price, about $500
each.
The case was continued yesterday.
At it's conclusion counsel for the de-
| fence moved for direction of q verdict
of no cause for action.
Judge Carrow took the motion
under advisement until tomorrow.
V. Claude Palmer represented the
plaintiffs; Henry F. Stockwell appear.
| ed for the defendants.