Daily Republican., 1885-05-21
superior Court.
THE THIRD CASE COMPLETED
Com OMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT
OF JOHN w. DIEFEN DORF
V S. NJ A Y @ r W A L L S.

y. vi "A " IL w "A u T. ,.
| The afternoon session of Superior
Court reconvened at o'clock on We'd
nesday, with Chief Justice Comegy,
and Associates Wootten and Houston
present Immediately after the open
ing, the case of the Minneapolis Har
yester Works w. Alfred p. Crockett,
WAS resumed, And Thomas A. Lofiand
recalled. He testified that some time
after Mr.. Crockett bought the binder
, he came to him and wanted him to take
] 1t off his hands, saying that he would
pay him for his trouble.
A. II. Woodward was recalled, and
corroborated the previous witness in
reference to Mr.. Crockett wanting them
| to take the binder back, and said that
he offered him $40 TO take it off his
hands.
He also testified that Mr.. Crockett
i did not find any fault with the machine,
| out said he would like u have one that
would cut q wider swath. When he
told Mr.. Crockett that he would not
take the machine back, he said he
would not Keep it, or settle for it.
Martin A. j Springer testified that
he was member Of the firm OF Wood
ward * Co., and remembered when Mr..
Crockett came to their store about the
machine. He talked about Mr.. LOT
land; aud said hs was not tit to be an
agent. and that If they wanted to sell
machines they lad better put them In
some one else's hand, He then spoke
about the binder, and said he was will
ing 10 pay about $40 for the time he
had used the machine, if they would
Ia ~ it off his hands. This was the
only conversation the witness had with
lin about the matter.
Samuel r. Maree was sworn, and tes
titled that he was 4 salesman with
Woodward x Co and heard Mr.. Crock.
EFT When he offered to pay Mr.. Springer
$40 to take the machine back. He said
The machine did splendid work, aud
that he haG no fault to find with it,
He also saw Mr.. Crockett at the store
on two other occasions, and heard him
offer $40, then S45, and afterwards $50 II
they would take the machine oil his
hands.
This closed the evidence for the ri lain
tiff, and Mr., Riggs made his opening
address to the jury, after which he com.
mencet the examination of W itut sses foI
the defense.
Alfred p. Crockett was sworn and
testified that one day, while he was a,
Mr.. Lotiend's place, he saw the ma
chine, and he asked him to look at it.
After wards he wanted to sell the ma
chine to the witness, but he obi cted TO il
on account of the trouble he would have
to replace any of the parts that might
break
He again saw Mr.. Lotiaud, and upon
his urging him to take the machine he
again refused to buy 1t, SO he finally
OH ~ t,1.. s.
the witness at first refused TO do OIL
account of the trouble he would be iC
| in getting into his field, as there ar.
very few gates that a binder will &c
| through, and 1t is generally necessary
| to take down part of the fence. a
| last, through Mr.. Lockwood's earnest
| solicitation the witness agreed to Try
| it, on condition that he would not b.
| held responsible for it,
There was nothing said about th,
price, CT about giving a note in pay
! ment, az the witness express ly told Nj T
| Lofiand that he would not buy it
and only tried it for his satisfaction, al
he said he had never seen one work
and il might be the means ofhis dispos
ing of some in that neig hboI hood.
| The machine cut as nice as any III n
chine he ever saw, but was poor bind
er. After he had tried it he asked Mr.
4 L1titnd what he should do with III,
machine, aud was surprised when Ia,
Informed him that he had returned th,
machine as sold. When lie expressl
| told him that he would hot keep tn,
machine, he said he would take 1t back
il the witness would pay him $40, and
he, rather than have any trouble, offer
Ell to pay him $50.
The witness then called on Mr.. Wood
ward, but did not offer to pay him an,
money he did ask Mr.. Woodward
he would take $40 or $50 TO settle tn
case. Had it not been to benefit MI
Lotiand he would not have allowed tn
machine to be tried ON his place, as h
had a machine of his own that answere
every purpose
Harry Crockett was sworn, and testi
fled that he is son of the previou
witness. He rememb bered the day tn
binder was tried, but he did not try i,
They had to put four horses to til
binder, as IL was too heavy for thre,
The machine broke down and MIR. LOi
land did not fix it ; the witness did nj
think he could fix 1t. He heard h
father tell Mr.. Lotiand that he did nj
want TO buy machine of any kint
as he intended 10 make the Old one do.
Courtland Crockett, another sou
| ohS utiohuahty was sWolh auh bpiit
brated the testimony of his father an
br other.
Alfred T. Mcguire testified that
, was employed by Mr.. Crockett in 1874;
: and drove the machine the day il wa
tried; it broke at least SIX times, wti
they We're driving around.
MIR. Iceland was OF tho ground, an
the witness had a conversation viii
him, during which he stated that Nj
Crockett had not bought the machil
but was only trying it for his beneti
This closed The evidence for the defen
and Mr.. Lyman recalled Martin A.
Springer. to prove that Mr.. Crocke
told him that the machine bound a
fright, hut on ncross-examination by Nj
Biggs he admitted that the binder W;
not mentioned, and that Mr. Crocke
had only said that the machine worl
ed all right.
The case was submitted without ar &
ment, and after a brief charge by t.
Chief Justice the jury retired at 4. 55 I
clock, AT $50 o'clock they return
with a verdict for the defendant, aft
!. which they were discharged until 10'
clock this morning.
"A jury w3s then drawn and the Ca
of John w. Deifendorf IL Co, VS.. Jol
+. Wales, with Samuel A: Macallist,
Esq for the plaintiff and Levi q Biz
Esq.. for the defendant was taken u
l. rms Is an act ION TO recover a claim
~ Sl37 80, which it is alleged il due a
unpaid, the facts as stated by Macall
ter beiup ~ fpilpua