Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1870-04-22
Cobb vs. Arundel.
rRsported expressly for the chronicle.l

IKeported expressly LOT tue SuFcniSie'I
George W. Cobb ct al. vs.. Richard
Arundel. Lanyon & Sprnsely for plain
tiff, Reese & Mulks for defendant.
The jury was ilnI aneled and sworn as
foil VS.:
Jonathan Job. Charles Hope Henry Ran. John
HoaIe fhoma- W. Lewis, George W. Lewis, Will am
Elliott, Joseph Goidsworthy, John rrelOaI, William
II. Hooking, CORNELIUS James. Joseph Gilman.
Mr.. Spensely cad me complaint: This.
i an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover d lmagcs from the defendant to the
amount of Sl0u, for payment for so washing
m ,china heads hat defendant ordered 10
be made in June, 1868. nothing US yet mas
ever been paid for them.
Mr.. Mulks denied ever having any wash
ing machines at all they never gave an
order for any.
Mr.. Pcarce sworn. He ia one Of the
plaintiffs in this action; he was in PARTNER
ship with g. W. Cobb in the manufacture.
Of doors and sash. The partnership was
dissolved before this action was comInen.
ced. but he il still the owner of the &C
counts. In May. 1858, Mr.. Mitchell saw
the price of making machine heads. He
told him g each. Mr.. Mitchell then or
dered so of them made for Mr.. Arundel.
saying that he wanted them right away. as
roon as they could make them. The next
day Mr.. Mitchell gave them another order
for two more. saying they were to he a
little smaller than the others were. lie
had sent out the bill to defendant several
tunes, but never heard from him. Witness
saw Mr.. Arundel sosne time after and ask
ell him for the money. He refused to pay
anything, saying, he never ordered any
more than two machines. Mr. Dayey took
the heads to Dudg-vlle. never heard that
defendant refused them.
Mr.. Minor sworn. He is plaintiff in
this action. Mr.. Mitchell met him at the
depot. IN Mineral Point. and ordered 50
machines foI MIR. Arundel. Mr.. Mitchell
said tina. defendant Was as good as the
gold, said they need not he afraid to trust
him for all he wanted. He told witness
not TO forget the order. as Mr.. Arundel
wanted them a. SOON ~ they could make
them Tn y were charged OH the books
to defendant. have never received any pay
Tor the machines
Cross exi,nined Have never heard
they were refused, defendant never offered
tU return them.
Mr.. Arundel sworn. Says he never
gave Mr. Mitchell any authority to order
any mectines. Mr. Dlvry brought 80 Of
the heads to his store and left them OH the
side walk he told Davey they were no,
his, he never ordered them, Mr.. Davey
asked to put them in his store, as it was
raining, and he would tell the plaintiff
they were not wanted, and that def.ndan,
refused to lake them. liz told Mr.. Mitch.
ell TO ask the plaintiff whit he would
charge for making 50 heads, but did not
give an order. have never acknowledged
receiving any machines.
Mr.. Mitchell sworn. lie was never au
thoriz d TO give an order for the machines,
he was authorized to inquire the price Of
making THIN. that was all.
Mr.. Davey sworn Brought home 80
machines as plaintiffs told him they wcrv
for defendant, he LETT them there, defend
ant positively refused to have them, have
no, been paid for bringing them out.
Peter Morris sworn. He sent by Mitch
ell for two washing machine heads, wit
nes% wanted twelve of those that defend.
ant hal, bu' defendant said they were not
his and he had nothing to do with them
Mr. Spensely said that it Was altogeth-
er probable that Mr.. Arundel could not
get tubs as he expected when he ordered
the heads, and therefore thought he med
not pay for them the question was whcth-
err defendant ought to pay for the heads or
not. having kept plaintiffs property near
~ two years.
Mr.. Mnlks says they are sueing to re.
cover something that has never appeared.
There cannot be a sale without an order,
and it has been fully proven that there
nev,r was an order of any kind. The fact
of def ndant paying an old bill of $i8 and
not paving anything on the machines.
proved better than anything else that he
ignored the whole till. and did not &C.
knowledge that the machines were his.
The court charged the jury as follows:
The plat tiff partners to recover the value of
30 wash tub heads valued at 81 eaclN SAID t have
been nanu'aci ured by the plaintiff the order of
defendant, and delivered to him i'll June, 1865; also
two other machines.
The claim in this case 10 altogether question for
the jury. depending upon the testimony. The pain
till introducing evidence which they claim shows
that the defendant gave order through Mr.. Mitch
ell requesting them to make the machines and the
Mitchell, and ti'f When NJ Davey brought the ma
chimes TO the defendants store he, defendant refused
to receive them his own, and MY allowed them TO
be stored in his building for the accommodation of
the pla ntiif.
Ii the defendant only authorized Mitchell tn en-
q1ire at what prce the plaintiff would make AID fur
nsh The machines. he defendant would not he liable
Ii Mtchell oveist.pped his authority. and dire ted
the plaintiff to m tfarture the machines and deliv-
er them the defeniant tosjnstify such conciu-
sion. II would have to lie shown that Mitchell had
been in tile habit OF making such contracts for the
dete 'dant, and that he lad ratified them
1t Is cont"nded TINT the dsienda 4 adopted the act
OF the agent, by not notifying tho plaintiff that he.
de entant. den ed the CORRECTNESS of sent
by The plaintiff to the defendant. in which he was
charged for the machire-. 1t appears the defendant
pa d the $3.50 due on an old account, which was
part OF the account sent 10 the de!endipt. The de-
fentant wa not hound by any hing thar Davey may
have said t" the plaintiff when he p,id them this
slS unless it is shown that the defendant author
lied Davey To make tho e special statements.
The reiain'nS oi an account for considerable
time after sent without making any al lection to It's
correctness, in wher" the creditor does not
know his conn is disputed. affords presumption
that thesdebtor Is t. the cam. Tue payment
sf p re however may justify the presumption that
the ren,a nier is dou'ied or disputed h t. We ght
Is due TO he c0nside ations is Tor TO determine,
in connex on with a other facts proven tefore you.
If Davey told the plaintiff that the defendant refused
TO accept the machines, it notice to them that
their claim was disputed Whether Payey did OF
not You will dcterni from the evidence.
in re creme to the .wo machines subsequently
der d. you will find for the plaintiff ii the defend mt
actual order them; II hs 's,y guaran' iced 'he
paync.lt of machines ordered by Mr. Norris for his
own use. tn guarants teng in writing. tie de-
fshdant w.uid not to responsible.
The jury retired and returned with the
following verdict:
We the Jury End for tia detendant
Pn,lip Branger W.. Edwin T.. Bnttrick-
NJ. NJ Strong for plaintiff L. j. Hill for