Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1870-04-15
Iowa County Circuit Court
March Term, 1870.
Willard VS.. GRADER.
DOLPHIN vs. pEpLEY-TREspAss SUIT.
reported expressly for the chrOnicle.l

Reported expressly for the Chronicle.]
Charles S. Willard VS.. John GRADER. Ju-
ry impaneled and sworn, as follows: 4.
Thomas Carkeek, Richard Davis, Alex Allison
Louis Bourgault, VIM r. Faraghar, William Battcn
B. S. Butterield +. Lieurance, James DELL H. H.
Prdeaux, George W. Jones, hlcharo A'ey'
Mr.. Spensely opened the case by saying,
This was an action brought by the paintif
to recover of the defendant the balance
due on the sale of about 81 hogs. Plain
tiff alleges he sold defendant the hogs at
81 dollars per hundred, whereas, defend
ant only paid him 81 per hundred, and
he therefore sues for the difference.
Mr.. Wilson, for the defendant, said that
this is an appeal case, and that the defend
ant had no counsel in the court below. He
admits he made contract with the plain
tiff for the purchase of about 62 hogs, but
alleges he paid plaintiff all that was owing
on the hogs, and at the time the payment
was made plaintiff was satisfied.
Mr.. Willard sworn. On the 22d of No.
yember he contracted with defendant to
deliver him 62 hogs. The contract was,
that defendant would give him 50 Is per
hundred any how, and if hogs raised in
price 80 cents per hundred between the
lime of the contract and the delivery of
the hogs, he would give him 50 so per
hundred; that he could deliver them any
time between the 18th and 25th of Deem
Der. They each made memorandum of
the contract. About the proper time to
delye' the hogs he went to see defendant,
and old him he wanted to Let him have
the h9gs and that he was ready to bring
themin. Defendant told him that hogs
| were up, he would give him the SO so,
but lie wanted him to hold on little, as
ne wanted to get lot more of like quality
so that he could ship them all together.
On the goth of December saw defendant
again and asked him when he could deliv-
er the hogs. Defendant told him that hogs
were down, he wanted him to keep them a
few days longer, ana that he would come
out to his place and see them. He came
the Sunday after, said the hogs were much
better than he expected, but asked him to
keep them awhile longer. He gave them
| bushels of corn per day. He weighed
tie hogs several times while keeping them
for defendant. He made an estimate and
| FUND the difference between the weight
If the hogs and the corn fed during the
fine, to be about S35; fed them Is days
after the proper time Of delivery. When
he took the hogs, defendant refused to pay
more than So rs, saying that hogs were
down. There were $5l between them as
plaintiff had figured at 50 so, told defend
ant he should not be satisfied to take any
thing less; that be could have sold the
same hogs for $40 10 per hundred if he
had not had a contract with defendant
Had been in readiness to deliver the hogs
from the first
Mr.. Beckford sworn. He lives in Milf
lin, that plaintiff engaged him to help him
haul in his pork Heard nothing in refer
ercnce to the pay. At the time the hogs
were delivered they were worth IS Is and
$40.
Mr.. Waring sworn. Tie was agent for
John Strachans; bought hogs and cattle
for him. On the 10th and 23rd he paid
50 % and 50 SO for live hogs, bnt they
were not very good ones. a that time
good hogs were worth $40 So
Mr.. PatefieId sworn. He was plaintiff $
attorney in the lower court. He spoke to
Mr.. Grader in regard to the contract. De-
PENDANT said he settled with plaintiff and
paid him all he owed.
Mr.. GRADER, the plaintiff, sworn. He
lives at Mineral Point; bis business is
buying and selling cattle and hogs. He
made contract with plaintiff for 60 hogs.
Told him he would pay him good price
for his hogs. No matter how low they
,'roaped h: would give him 50 %, and no
matter how high they raised he would
give him $3.50. They were to be liver
ed little before or little after New Year,
he vas not very particular; did not prom
,- ~: ,.,Allard % nay him $3.50, but told
him the prospects were good for th"'
price, that hogs wcreup.
Hogs commenced to drop on the llth of
December, and dropped for several days
after at the rate of so cents per day.
There were many buying at that time that
did not know the price. The contract
called for 60 hogs, plaintiff delivered 63,
and among the lot there were 3 piggy sows
which he did not want ut that price.
Several other witnesses were sworn, but
their testimony varied but little from the
above
aisei tiic ClOSc vi tllc al SihNi'lo " 'AN
attorneys, the court delivered the follow
ing charge to the jury:
The plaintiff sues recover of the defendant. tho
balance due on the sale pr about 62 hogs, winch the
planti alleges he contracted to sell TO defendant on
or about the I'D Nov, 1869 The plaintiff and de-
PENDANT differ, in respect to rhe terms ofte original
contract, and subsequent modification and whether
such moditica lions were made. Both parties agree
that the plaintiff receive in any event at least
94 cents per ID for sthe hogs delivered at Mineral
Point foot both agree also tat in case the price
raised to certain point, the plaintiff was to receive
81 cents per b. Evidence has been offered TO show
that the price of hogs actually did rise after the
tract made; and the plaintiff teshes that upon
This rise he offered TO deliver the hogs TO the defend
ant, and that the defendant ACKNOWLEDGED he was
bound TO pay 9l2 cents per ID but that the defendant
requested him, retain possession of the hogs some
time longer, the defendant wished to buy another
lot of like quality with those of the plaintiff If
find the fact be that the price had raised 80 cents
per hundred, after the contract made and thar
the plaintiff offered to deliver the hrgs at that
time, bu kept them longcr at the defendants request
ana to obige the defenlar the latter will he bound
to pay the conditional price nf $3.50 per hundred
But request the part of the defendant that The
plaintiff should keep the hogs few days longer will
not enttle the plaintiff to recoye for their Keeping
in the time If there not express sflpu'a-
ton. il ill he presumed that what the plaintiff lost
In corn be would gain in pork. As long as re hogs
belonged to the plalntif-that is, until delivery
there evidence 10 show that the defendant was
bound t. pay for feeding them The defendants
sion OF the contract is that if when the hogs were
delivered by the plaintiff, they were worth advanced
price of 80 cents per hundred then the defendant WAS
to pay ~ 80 per hundred-the plantiff dld not dc-
liver them till about the lth 18th OF January al
which time he insists the prices had fallen II such
are the facts the defendant is rot compeed TO pay
more than 81 cents per ID. 1t is the province OF me
jury to reconcile conflicting testmony-the defend
ant denies. and the plaintiff affrms that he made
offers to deliver the hGgs when the price was mp ou'
that the defendant requested him to keep them long
or he far al he