The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1889-01-24
Herman VS., Grav.

The only jury trial for the January term
of the Circuit Court was that of the above
named suit brought here by change of
venue from Milwaukee County. The
amount of money directly involved in the
suit is $500 and the costs, which will be 8
heavy burden for the losing parties to bear
Henry Herman, the plaintiff, was repre-
sented by Frank NJ. Hoyt as attorney of
record and r. N. Austin, of counsel, both Of
Milwaukee, while the suit on the part of
w. Fl. Gray, the defendant, was guided
through the legal breakers by Mr.. Will
liams, of Milwaukee, with J. Y. Quarles, of
Racine, as counsel. The compliments
complaint alleged that Gray had purchased
a one-half interest in a patent to be used In
the manufacture of brick-making machines,
and that the said Gray had, at the same
time, purchased five of the said machines;
that the said Gray had agreed to pay 50, 500
for one-half interest in the patent and for
five machines already made and 'set up;''
that Gray had paid 81, 100 and given three
promissory notes for the balance; that the
defendant had renewed the said notes from
for which suit was brought.
The defendants answer admits the pur
chase of the patent and the machines and
alleges that he was induced to do SO by
false and fraudulent representations made
to him by the plaintiff. The answer fur
Their alleges that the plaintiff represented to
him that the said brick making machines
were practical and useful in all their parts;
that said machines separated out large
stones from the clay; that large profits
could be made from the sale of said ma
chimes; that the said machines were simple
in their construction; that it was the only
machine that had the crushing, mixing and
moulding process combined in one machine;
that the machine constructed under the pat
ent were useful and valuable; that said ma
chimes were in great demand; that said ma
chine could be readily sold and that large
profits could be made from the sale of said
machines The defendant further alleged
that all of the said representations were
false and fraudulent.
Mr.. r. w. Austin moved for non-suit,
and in an argument Of some length claimed
that the defendant was estopped from set
ting up fraud in his answer; that from the
date of the completion of the deal down to
the time of the renewal of the notes the
defendant had ample time to make inquir-
les, which he had neglected to do; that he
had not been diligent, but on the contrary
had slept on his rights and was not entitled
to a Judgment. The motion was overruled
exceptions noted and the case went to the
jury on its merits. A number of deposit
tions were read relative to the workings and
value of the machines in question Expert
brick makers from Milwaukee testified as to
what they knew about the "Gurney ma
chine," and some Of them did not give the
"Gurney" favorable send-of.. The argtl-
ments on the part Of the plaintiff were closed
by an able review Of the case by Mr.. r. N.
Austin. He was followed by the Hon. J. V.
Quarles. The reporter has often seen J.
VS. fine Italian hand while arguing his
side of a lawsuit, and when the Hon. gen
tleman sat down he imagined he could see
huge piles of patent-right scrap iron, dis
mantled pug mills, cracked mixing ma.
chimes, disjointed joints, broken cogs and
fractured bullwheels scattered all over the
country from Rochester, N. Y, to Vancouv.
ers Island, B. G. The jury were out three
hours and returned verdict in favor O
Mr.. Gray, the defendant. Court has ad
journed until the spring term, some time II
April