Volume 30 — New Jersey Law Reports

<p>1. The bonds issued by this state under the act of 1861 (Laws 1861, p. 551,) are exempt from taxation when held by individuals or corporations.</p> <p>2. The stocks and securities issued by the United States under the power to borrow money are exempt from state taxation in the bands of individuals or corporations.</p> <p>3. Stocks in foreign corporations, held by individuals resident in this state, are personal estate within this state, and subject to taxation.</p> <p>4. Corporations are entitled to have deducted from the amount of their capital stock paid in, and accumulated surplus, the amount of the bonds of this state and the stock and public securities issued by the United States owned by them at the time of assessment.</p>

The indictment in this case was found in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the county of Hudson, and removed by certiorari into the Supreme Court. It was taken down for trial before the Circuit Court of said county, and the jury returned a general verdict of guilty, together with a special state of the case.

<p>1. A paper may be competent evidence of a fact stated in it, although invalid as an agreement, to bind the party.</p> <p>2. The statements of an agreement invalid for want of consideration may he competent, and may be proved by the paper.</p>

<p>In case. Case certified from the Middlesex Circuit. Tlie facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>In error to Hunterdon Circuit Court.</p>

<p>In an action of trespass quare clausum fregit before a justice of the-peace, the defendant pleaded title and a right of way over the close in question. Upon such suit being brought in this court, the defendant filed six pleas. On motion to strike out pleas, it was</p> <p>Held, that the first plea of not guilty, not being the same plea as-that pleaded before the justice, must be stricken out; that the second plea of liberum tenemenlum is correct; that the fourth plea, that theloeus in quo was a public highway, is not a plea of title, and is not-good; that the third and fifth pleas, setting up a right of private way by prescription, and a right of private way by grant, if wrong, may be demurred to, but cannot be stricken out on motion; and that the' sixth plea, that the locus in quo was a by-way, and that it had been opened by three of the chosen freeholders, does not amount to a plea, of title, and must be stricken out.</p>

<p>1. All parties are bound to take notice of the day appointed by law for the meeting of the commissioners of appeal in cases of taxation; but if the commissioners meet at any other time than that appointed by law such meeting must be upon notice, and must also be at the place of holding the town meeting, in order to obtain jurisdiction of the person of the assessor; and they cannot, therefore, without such no- . tice alter his assessment.</p> <p>2. The tribunal of the commissioners of appeal is a special tribunal, and it is well settled that such tribunals should show upon the face of their record all facts necessary to give jurisdiction.</p>

<p>On demurrer to declaration.</p>

<p>1. In a suit in which husband and wife are joined are parties, neither is a competent witness for or against the other.</p> <p>2. Under the “ act concerning witnesses ” (Nix. Dig. 928), neither husband nor wife, in any suit or proceeding in which they are joined as parties, is a competent witness for or against the other.</p> <p>3. Under the same act, neither party can be sworn when the other party is prohibited by any legal disability.'</p>

<p>1. The powers of a municipal corporation are derived from its charter. It cannot, without express authority from the charter, create an office, define its duties, appoint an incumbent, and clothe him" with the powers of a municipal officer.</p> <p>2. Whore an officer of a municipal corporation gives his official bond with sureties, which bond recites that iie has been appointed “ collector of assessments for street improvements,” with condition that “he should well and truly pay to the treasurer of said city all moneys which he might collect or receive as such collector as aforesaid,” &c., the sureties are estopped from denying that such officer was de facto a collector of assessments for street improvements, and their liability to pay over what he has collected is eo-extensive with his liability.</p> <p>3. The fact that bonds are not prescribed by law does not necessarily invalidate them, although given by a public officer as security for the discharge of his duties, if they are not unlawfully exacted of him : if voluntarily given, they are binding upon the parties to them.</p> <p>4. By the charter of the city of Hoboken, “street improvements” do not include the building of sewers, and an officer may well'be a collector of assessments for “street improvements,” and not of sewer assessments. Sureties on such bond ought not to be held upon their admissions beyond its fair limits. Estoppels by deed are to be strictly, construed.</p>

In matter of road. On certiorari to the Middlesex Pleas- In 1860, an application was made to the Court of Common Pleas of Middlesex for the appointment of surveyors of the highways to vacate a certain road, then used as a public highway, in the township of Monroe, in said county. The appoinlment was made, and the surveyors, after viewing the premises, vacated the road, and made return of their proceedings according to law.

On certiorari to the Essex Pleas. In matter of insolvency. The case was heard upon the following statement of facts, agreed on by the counsel of the parties respectively.

The certiorari was brought to set aside an assessment made by the common council of Jersey City for paving and otherwise improving Bright street. Tlie principal reasons urged arq — first, that tlie resolution of council appointing a time for hearing objections to the improvement had not been presented to the mayor for his approval; and second, that the ordinance of council was variant from the petition and notice required by the charter, and therefore unlawful and void.

<p>1. TYlien, upon the trial day, the defendant moves to nonsuit the plaintiff because tlie costs of two former suits for tlie same cause of action have not been paid, and the defendant offers to pay the costs forthwith, and the defendant is not prepared with his bills of costs or to. show tlie amount of costs due, he is not entitled to a judgment of nonsuit.</p> <p>2. The statement of counsel in a justice’s court, made several months after the trial, and when he had ceased to represent his client, cannot bind the client.</p>

This case came before the court on a motion to order satisfaction entered of a certain judgment confessed by the defendants to the plaintiff, on the 19th of May, 1858, for the sum of $19,996.58, which the defendants alleged was collateral security for the payment of certain bonds which had been given by the defendants to the plaintiff, and which bonds had been satisfied and paid. The facts, as presented by the parties, are fully given in the opinion of the court.

On caso certified for the advisory opinion of this court. The defendant was indicted, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer in and for the county of Passaic, for keeping a disorderly house.' The indictment was in the usual form. Upon the trial, the court charged the jury, among other things, that selling beer on Sunday constituted a disorderly house, if tlie jury believed that the defendant made it a practice to do so whenever lie had customers.

On certiorari. In matter of taxation. The assessments in the above stated cases, having been made under the act of March 28th, 1862, entitled “ a further supplement to the act entitled an act concerning taxes,” and not under the charter of the city and its supplements, were removed into this court, and sought to be set aside, on the ground that they were illegally made, and that the provisions of the charter in regard to matters of taxation, being special and local in their…

<p>In an action for a penalty for the violation of a city ordinance, which declares that it shall not be lawful for any person to burn tan in propelling machinery, or for any other purpose, to the annoyance and discomfort of any person or persons residing in his or their vicinity; and if he does, and shall not immediately desist, upon the request of any citizen annoyed thereby, or shall be guilty of any subsequent violation of such ordinance, he shall be liable to a fine, &c., it is necessary to allege in the state of demand, a burning after a request to desist and the names of the persons who were annoyed.</p>

This was an action of trespass, brought by Colwell and Cavalier, the plaintiffs below, against Earrel, for selling and delivering possession of a horse and harness claimed by them. The defendant below, Earrel, justified as constable under a judgment and execution against, one Peter Cavalier.

<p>In debt. On demurrer to declaration.</p>

<p>New trial applied for on the ground that a witness for the defendant made-statements in the hearing of some of the jury which might have influenced tlie verdict, but refused, as it appears that there was no evil intention, that the defendant had no concern in the transaction and that the verdict was satisfactory to the court.</p>

On certiorari and motion to quash indictment. In 1862, at the Court of Oyer and Terminer in and for the county of Hudson, a bill of indictment was found against the inhabitants of the county for not repairing a certain common and public bridge over the Morris canal, in said county, being a common highway, which had become dangerous to pass, and which the county was hound to repair.

<p>1. The water commissioners of Jersey City are authorized to execute the plan of sewerage adopted by them, “with such changes or alterations as may be found convenient or necessary in the progress of the work; ” if the general plan contemplated the use of an old sewer, the commis.sioners, if they find it convenient and necessary, may abandon that part of the plan, and construct a new sewer in place of the old one Of this the commissioners are the sole judges, and having acted thereon, this court has no authority to review their decision.</p> <p>2. The charter requires the signature of the mayor to all resolutions affecting the interests of the city: held, that a resolution of the com-moil council referring a petition for a sewer to the committee on sewerage does not require the signature of the mayor.</p> <p>3. By the act of 1854, (Laws 1854,404,) the legislature intended, after the general plan of sewerage was adopted hy the city, to secure the execution of it hy the water commissioners, and to take from the mayor and common council ail duties and authority respecting it, except on application, after giving notice and hearing objections, to determine iAe time when the work, or any part of it should he done.</p>

In replevin. On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside. This was an action brought in this court, and upon the-trial of the issue at the Hudson Circuit, at the term of December, 1861, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for six cents damages. On the coming in of the postea, a rule was obtained that the defendant should show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial granted.

This was a case, certified from the Circuit Court of the county of Morris, for an advisory opinion, whether the charge of Chief Justice Whelpley stated the law correctly. The facts of the ease sufficiently appear in the charge and the opinion of the Supreme Court.

<p>On certiorari. In the matter of laying out a public street in the city of Elizabeth.</p>

<p>1. A bond, by an executor or administrator, to the Ordinary of the state, which varies from llie form prescribed by the statute, if voluntarily given, and not made void by statute, is good.</p> <p>2. When, by the condition of such bond, the executor or administrator is required to render a just and true account concerning the sale, an assignment of a breach of such condition, that he had not rendered a just and true account of his administration of the moneys arising from the sale, is bad on demurrer.</p>

<p>In trespass. On motion to strike out pleas.</p>

On indictment for rape. The defendant having been indicted in the Oyer and Terminer of the county of Passaic, and on the trial acquitted of rape, and convicted of an assault, the question was reserved for the advisory opinion of this court, whether judgment ■could be entered on the verdict.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff, as administrator of his son, David Teller, jun., against the defendants, under the act of March 3d, 1848, for the recovery of damages sustained by the death of his sou, which was occasioned, as he alleged, by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendants.

On rule to show cause, &c. This was an action of trespass for an assault and battery. The issue was tried at.the Hudson Circuit, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for six cents damages. A rule on the defendant to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside was granted by the court. The reasons assigned for setting aside the verdict are stated in the opinions delivered.

<p>1. To a suit on a judgment in New York, the plea of nil debet is the general issue.</p> <p>.2. Under our statutes of 1799, Nix. Dig. 681, § 3, and of March 6th, 1852, Nix. Dig. 681, it is regular in such suit to plead nil debet, and give notice that no summons had been served in New York; and judgment signed, as for want of a plea, will he set aside with costs</p>

<p>1. The vessel lien law of this state applies as well to foreign as to domestic vessels.</p> <p>2. A lien for supplies furnished to a foreign vessel, on the bredit of one of the owners or the master, does not create a maritime lien on the vessel within the jurisdiction of the United States courts of admiralty, .and may he enforced in the courts of this state.'</p>

On certiorari to remove certain ordinances, passed by the mayor and common council of the city of Hoboken, providing for the laying of railroad tracks, and running of railroad cars thereon, in the city of Hoboken.

This is the action of replevin, reported 5 Butcher 195, the defendant having noticed the case for trial, and taken a verdict, in the absence of the plaintiff, at the December Capé May Circuit.

This was an action of debt brought upon a constable’s bond. Judgment by default, for want of a plea, was entered by the plaintiff, and on application of the defendant, a writ of inquiry for the assessment of damages was ordered. The plaintiff moved that the rule for a writ of inquiry be dismissed, as not being authorized by the statute; and, also, that the plaintiff’s damages be assessed by the court.

This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Middlesex •Circuit Court by William Beardsley, jun., as endorsee, against Christopher Meyer, as acceptor of a bill of exchange, drawn on him by F. Lunt, for $1240, payable at two days’ sight, to the order of Charles Beardsley and Brothers, dated at St. Louis, March 12th, 186.1. On the face of the bill, and across it, were the following words: Excepted, April 22d,’61.

On certiorari. In matter of assessment for improvements, &c. It was moved that the writ be dismissed on two points: 1. Because the same proceedings had, by a former writ of certiorari, to which the present prosecutor was a party, been brought up before the court for review, and judgment thereon had been rendered. 2. That the prosecutor had lost his remedy by unavoidable •■delay.

<p>1. That part of the sixth section of the act in regard to insolvent debtors (Nix. Dig. 378,)* which requires the debtor’s conduct to be fair, upright, and just, must be restricted to his conduct in making his account and inventory, and in delivering up to his creditors all his estate, and does not apply to the conduct of the debtor in contracting his debt.</p> <p>2. If the debtor has made a conveyance of his real property to his wife, although before the debts were contracted, it is a question for the jury whether such conveyance was made with intention to defraud his creditors. Such conveyance is not per se fraudulent and void; yet, if not made bona fide and for the benefit of the wife, but with a fraudulent intent, it comes within the provision of the tenth section of the insolvent act, and is a good bar to the defendant’s discharge.</p>

<p>On certiorari to the Common Pleas of Passaic county on appeal.</p>

The plaintiff below, Thomas Crozer, brought suit against William B. Sutphin, the defendant, to recover a certain sum of money, which had been deposited with him as a bet on. the result of a horse race, on the ground that the race had never been run. The ruling of the court on a question of evidence was excepted to by the defendant, and a bill of exceptions was. prayed and allowed.

On rule to show cause, &c. The issue in this case was tried at the Salem Circuit, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant seeks to have the verdict set aside, and a new trial granted, because he was not an endorser of the note sued on, and if an endorser he had no sufficient notice of non-payment.

<p>On certiorari. In matter of assessment and taxation.</p>

■ On certiorari. In matter of assessment, to raise money ■under a special law to pay for building a school house. This suit is brought to remove a certain certificate, made by ■the trustees of the Union School District, in the township of Wayne, Passaic county, directing the said assessor to levy and .assess the sum of seven hundred dollars on the property and inhabitants of said district, to defray the expense of building a school house.

The suit is upon an administration bond, given by the defendants, as administrators of the personal estate of Samuel Cooley, deceased.

<p>The plaintiff applied to the court for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue against defendant, as clerk ■of the Court of Common Pleas of Hudson county, requiring him to allow the applicant, as one of the attorneys of the •court, to make searches in the books of record- in his office without the payment of fees.</p>

The action is brought on a check on the Cataract City Bank, drawn in Paterson by Tunis Sip, to the order of the plaintiffs, for $341.95. It was for merchandise bought on the 24th October, 1860, and was given on that day, but post dated 24th of November following. The check not being paid by the bank, plaintiffs brought this suit to recover the amount.

<p>The stealing of lead water-pipe, fixed to a paper mill, is indictable under the 66th section of the statute respecting crimes. Nix. Dig. 188.</p>

<p>This was a certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Hudson in a case of appeal from the judgment of a justice.</p>

<p>On certiorari to remove assessment.</p>

This was a certiorari bringing up an assessment for a street improvement, and was argued before Justices Haines and Elmer, by B. Williamson, for the prosecutrix, and by 1. W. Scudder, for the town of Bergen.

<p>X. It seems that the representatives of one of the defendants in a joint judgment vito has died may be sued, although the other defendant is living.</p> <p>2. The plaintiff in an action against executors of their own wrong is not a competent witness.</p> <p>8. The judgment against executors of their own wrong should be special, and not general.</p>

This was a certiorari to the Common Pleas of the county of Burlington, in a ease of appeal from the judgment of a justice; argued by F. Kingman, for plaintiff, and A. Browning, for defendants, before Haines and Elmer, Justices.

<p>On case certified from the Essex Circuit.</p> <p>The plaintiff brought her suit against the defendant for the •support and maintenance which the plaintiff, as mother, had provided for their child. Some time after marriage the parties separated, and plaintiff married a second time to a man named Tice, who died some three years before the suit was brought. After his death, the child was supported entirely by the plaintiff. The defendant refused to contribute to the support, alleging, as a reason, that the child was not his, having been born six months only after the marriage.</p> <p>On the trial, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court at bar on several questions, which were duly certified. The principal one was as to the admission of parol evidence, offered on the part of the plaintiff to prove the admission of defendant that he had been divorced from the plaintiff. This evidence was admitted by the court, and there was a verdict for- the plaintiff. It was now insisted that the evidence was incompetent.</p>

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount of a promissory note for $409.21, with interest. The issue was tried at the Mercer Circuit, and a verdict rendered for defendant. A rule was granted to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside. The facts of the case are-fully shown in the opinion of the court.

<p>On rule to show cause why verdict for the plaintiffs, rendered in the Mercer Circuit, should not be set aside.</p>

Action on the case to recover a legacy. David Howell, deceased, by his will, gave to his sister, Martha Green, wife of James B. Green, the interest of $1000, the amount to be put out on safe security, and the interest thereof to be annually paid to her, for her own private use, during her natural life; and after her decease, he gave the said $1000 to her two daughters, Deborah and Sarah, equally to be divided.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the county of Monmouth.</p>

<p>Where money raised by execution was brought into court for distribution, and claim made to it not only by the execution creditor, but by a landlord for the payment of rent, and also by attaching creditors, it was held—</p> <p>1. That to authorize payment to the landlord, it must appear that rent was due him upon such a lease or contract as would give him a right to distrain.</p> <p>'2. That where a jury, from the circumstances, would be authorized in finding that the landlord had relinquished his right of distress, the court is justified in denying his claim to any part of the money.</p> <p>•3. That where the property levied on was of less value than 5200, and no inventory or appraisement was made by the sheriff, as directed by law, but the property was suffered to remain in the hands of the defendant, and the execution creditor himself stayed all further proceedings on the execution, the goods were, by consent of the plaintiff, in defendant’s possession for his use and that of his family, and not as agent or bailiff of the sheriff, and the sheriff had no further lien on them, and could not lawfully sell them under the execution.</p>

A motion to quash the peremptory mandamus issued in this case, and a motion for attachments against the overseers, were made before Justices Haines and Elmer, and were argued by S. A. Allen and A. Browning, for the relators, and by A. L. Eakin and P. D. Vroorn, for the overseers.

This. was an application to set aside a ca. sa., and was argued before Haines and Elmer, Justices, by P. D. Vroom, for defendant, and A. G. Richey and M. Beasley, for plaintiffs.

<p>On certiorari. In matter of assessment.</p>

G. S. Cannon, for the defendant, moved to set aside the judgment in this case, as having been improvideutly entered. A. Dutcher, for plaintiff, contra. Before Elmer and Van Dyke, Justices.

In case certified from Monmouth Circuit Court. This action was brought on a joint and several promissory note, given by the defendants and one Benjamin Farrington, dated September 4th, 1850, payable one year after date, to John W. Stout, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. Farrington died before the 1st of February, 1855, and the suit was commenced on the 11th of July, 1861.

<p>1. A tax voted by a special town meeting to pay bounties to volunteers, unauthorized by any special law, where the notice of the meeting did not specify the object, and no specific sum, nor any certain means of ascertaining the proper amount were determined, held to be illegal.</p> <p>2. The town clerk’s oath, that a certified copy of a resolution of the town meeting was copied from the town book, held to be sufficient proof.</p> <p>3. A tax illegally assessed will be reversed and set aside when regularly before the court on a certiorari, although it has been collected by warrant.</p>

<p>This was a certiorari to the Somerset Pleas, bringing up a judgment of that court upon'an appeal.</p>

On trial for morder at the Burlington Oyer and Terminer. -■Several question were reserved for consideration at bar, and were argued by

<p>Certiorcu'i to set aside assessment for paving a street under authority of the city council of the city of Elizabeth.</p>

<p>1. The charter of the Morris and Essex Railroad Company subjects the .company to a tax of one and a half per cent, on the cost of the road, :as soon as the net proceeds shall equal seven per cent., and provides that no other tax shall be levied upon the company. By the terms of rthe charter, it may be altered or repealed by the legislature. The ■subsequent general lax law of 1862 subjected to taxation the real .estate of all private corporations, “ except those which by virtue of any irrepealable contract in tlieir charters or other contracts with the state are expressly exempt from taxation,” and it repealed all acts, whether special or local, inconsistent with its provisions. Held, that the tax law of 1862 repealed the provision of the charter in regard to taxation, and that the assessment made upon the real estate of the company in the township of Morris was rightfully made under the general law.</p> <p>2. No “irrepealable contract” can result from provisions in a charter which is made, in terms, subject to alteration, amendment, or repeal by the power granting it.</p> <p>3. Where the right to alter or amend a charter, whenever the public good may require, is reserved, the legislature is the proper tribunal to determine when the right shall be exercised.</p>

<p>The common council of the city of Newark have no power to compel the board of education to disburse, under certain terms and conditions, an appropriation for the support of certain public schools not under the charge of the board of education.</p>

<p>1. Bead, the defendant, leased to Barker and Barker, the plaintiffs, a mill and water power, and covenanted with them for the use of the water in as full and ample a manner as lie had enjoyed it. The plaintiffs alleging that the defendant had placed a trunk in the pond in such manner as to carry off the water of a certain spring, which was one of the principal tributaries to the bond, brought suit to recover damages. Held, that the opinion of millers and millwrights, whether they be called experts or practical men, as to the quantity of grain the mill was capable of grinding and the value of the water for milling purposes, together with the statement of the method used for measuring or weighing, was competent evidence.</p> <p>2. When a witness, who has been in attendance during the progress of a trial, fails to appear when called, the court will not reverse the judgment for that cause, no motion having been made to postpone the case or procure the testimony of the witness de bene esse; and especially when it appears that the evidence of the witness, had he been present, would have been only cumulative.</p>

Oil the 3d May, 1862, Cox was arrested by the sheriff of the county of Burlington, upon a writ of ca. sa., issued, out of the Circuit Court of said county, at the suit of Joseph W. Bond et at. On the 16th September, of same year, he filed a petition to he discharged under the act abolishing imprisonment for debt in certain cases.

This action was brought to recover the amount due on three several bonds, given by Garret Smith and David Smith to Peter Smith, in his lifetime, each for the payment of one thousand dollars. The defendant pleaded payment, and gave notice of set-off. On the trial much evidence was offered to show partial payments at different times, and also to show the transactions and dealings of the parties in reference to the bonds.

On certiorari. In matter of assessment for grading and ■paving part of Easton avenue under an ordinance of the city ■ council.

In assumpsit. On case stated for advisory opinion of this court. James Mead, in 1849, sold a house and lot, in New York, to Jacob G-. Doremus, the defendant, for $5000; and the said defendant thereupon, and in part consideration of the purchase, promised the said Mead that he would pay to Hannah Ryerson, the plaintiff’s intestate, to whom he was indebted for board, the sum of $100 per annum, after the death of said Mead, so long as the said Hannah Ryerson should live.

<p>On certiorari. In matter of assessment for schools in. school district No. 6, in the township of Howell.</p>

On certiorari to review an assessment made against the-property of the defendants, under the tax law of 1862, and. to settle the true mode of valuation.

On certiorari to remove indictment for a misdemeanor. The defendant was indicted at the Sussex Oyer and Terminer, in April term, T863, for procuring the miscarriage of one C. L. V. The indictment contained four counts.

Certiorari. In matter of taxation. Certain ferry boats, owned by the New York and Erie' Railroad Company, and plying between New York and Jersey City, were assessed by the authorities of Jersey City as-property subject to taxation. It appeared they belonged to a foreign corporation, and were regularly enrolled in the custom house in New York. The prosecutors sought to set aside the assessment, for the following reasons: 1.

Ejectment to recover twenty-four lots of land in the City of Elizabeth, in the county of Union. Issue having been joined, and the cause set down for trial, the parties agreed upon the following statement of facts, on which the case was afterwards argued before the court at bar.

On certiorari. In matter of taxation. In 1862, the prosecutors were assessed in Jersey City upon the amount of their capital stock. After a reduction, made by the commissioners of appeal, the amount of tax was 1138.74.

On certiorari. In matter of taxation. The prosecutors, having been taxed in Jersey City, in 1862, the sum of $1246 on their capital stock, stated in the assessment to be $150,000, brought this certiorari to set aside the assessment as erroneous — first, because their capital stock is exempt from tax by law; second, because they are taxed upon, the whole amount of their capital stock in Jersey City, when, the whole or greater part of their road is not situate within the said…

This was a certiorari in a tax ease, and was argued before Justices Haines and Elmer, by G. A. Allen, for the prosecutor, and M. Beasley, for defendant.

This was a certiorari in a tax case, and was argued before Justices Elmer and Van Dyke, by J. M. Sherrerd, for the prosecutor, and J. Vliet, for the township.

The case came up on a writ of error to the Monmouth Circuit Court. The reason assigned for reversal of the judgment, and the-facts relied on in support of them, are set forth in the opinion, of the court.

<p>1. A master is liable to answer in a civil suit for the tortious acts of his servant, if the act be done in the course of his employment in his-master’s service, or within the scope of his authority; Avhether so done or not, must depend upon the-facts of each particular case.</p> <p>2. What acts of the captain of a ferry boat may be considered as not being in the course of his employment.</p> <p>3. The rule which should govern the court on a motion to nonsuit, discussed.</p>

David P. Martin, in and by his last will and testament* devised (among other things) as follows: “ Item. After the-death of my said wife, I give and bequeath to my nephew* Peter Nevius, one acre of land joining the road leading from Metuchen to Bonhamptown on the west, and my house lot on the east.

Those suits were brought by the state to recover the amount of the transit duty claimed to be due from the defendants, respectively, for the passengers, goods, wares, and merchandise transported by them, or for them, on certain railroads in this state, a distance exceeding ten miles. The claims are made by the state, under the 10th section of the act of March 28th, 1862, entitled “a further supplement to an act entitled, an act concerning taxes,” approved April 14th, 1846.

On the 9th September, 1854, Anna V. Traphagen conveyed, by deed, to Catharine Ann V. B. Adams, wife of Alonzo W. Adams, certain lots and real estate, situate in Jersey City, for and in consideration of natural love and affection and of one dollar paid.

<p>An agreement, whereby the plaintiff granted a right to the defendant to erect a mill dam, and stop a ditch, on his land, and the defendant agreed that all damages sustained should be paid by him, held to mean such damages as the plaintiff might from time to time sustain. The case of Van Schoick v. Canal Company, Spencer 24, held not applicable.</p>

A certiorari was sued out of the Supreme Court, at the instance of John Howeth el at., prosecutors, against the Mayor and Common Coucil of Jersey City, to remove into that court an assessment made under an ordinance of the •common council for paving and improving Bright street. The Supreme Court set aside the assessment, as to the prosecutors, principally for the reason that the ordinance had not •been regularly passed, and was not legal.

In the term of April, 1859, the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Somerset, upon application of John R. Par-sell and others for the appointment of surveyors of the highways to lay out a road in the township of Bridgewater, in said county, appointed John P. Voorhees and Cyrenius T. Stryker, of the township of Branchburg; Israel H. Hill and John B. Brokaw, of the township of Plillsborough, and John N. Hoagland and Peter L. Suydam, of the township of Franklin, six…

This was an action of ejectment,' brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff, in error, in the Supreme Court, to recover possession of a parcel of land, containing 9.83 acres, in the city of Paterson. The suit was commenced on the 30th November, 1861. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the cause was tried in April, 1862, at the Circuit Court in the county of Passaic, before his Honor Justice Ogden. The plaintiff offered in evidence— 1.