Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-05-11

pany, by which tho plaintiff was induced to
buy Of the defendant 35 shares Of ssid stock
at $40 share, par value being 500. He
further told them that tho plaintiffs claim,
briefly stated, was that he was induCsd to
buy 20 shares in June, 1890, and 10 share, in
September of the snmo year by the de
fondants repretcn tations; that the company
had been formed to manufacture use and
sell job and newspaper presses as to tbs
capital OF the company, its letters patent,
covering both presses, its profit on the ma
chimes sold and It's ability to pay dividend
Jan. /, 1891, OF from s to 10
per cent; and that the defendant
concealed from him certain facts, viz, that
the patent Tor tas ne wspsper press had not
actually been grantat, but was in contro-
versy in the patent office, also about the
financial condition OF the company and the
sale OF $500 coo of the treasury stock.
The plaintiff clnims that he relied on these
representations and made the purchases
solely in reliance upon them that be after
ward discovered the representations were
untrue, that the company paid no dividends,
had no means TO pay and the stock was Of
no value.
Tbs defendant claims, in substance, thai
he became interested Interested in these
prsrses, thought them far superior to all
Others In use, that he believed in them
thoroughly, put his own money into tho
stocS, and expected great results The
question for the jury was WHISTLER in his
negotiations with the plaintiff, he went fur
ther thnn to describe these presses his claim
to their superiority and to express the ex
pectations ms to sales and profits.
If the representations were as the plain
tiff alleges, they were fraudulent il the
plaintiff relied upon them, for the defend
no patent on the NJ wspapsr press au1 that
he knew there were, in fact, then, no funds
in the treasury with which to pay divilends
On the other hand, if the representations
were as the defendant alleges, then it is
not claimed that they we're fraudulent. The
judge laid down the folio wing propositions
Of law:
Ii the defendant made false represen ia
tions, knowing them to be false and plain
TIL relied upon taem in making the pur-
chase OF stock and was damaged, then the
defendant is lisble
On the othor hand, all false representa-
tions made i'll the sale OF property are not
actionaDe. IL the defendant made repre-
scntations that proved untrue, he is not liza
bic, il, whsn he made them, he honestly be-
lioved them to lie true, and believed on
reasonable grounds
statements, believing them TO be true, you
may say whether be had reasonable grounds
for his be)iof; and in considering the subject
OF his belief, you should consider what he
says as to his expectations Of this SUCCESS of
these patents, to his putting his time and
money into them and inviting his friends .
invest in the stock. Upon the subject of
knowledge, corsjder what the company was
then doing, in respect to manufacturing
machines; the orders 1t was receiving for
presses, its sales thereof, the prospective
profits on the presses made aud sold the
quality of the job presses and the prospect
o. patent being secured on the Newspaper
press.
The law allows considerable latitude to
the seller of property, IN eXtoling its quail
ties and expressing opinions as to its quail
ties. Such expressions as u wonderful in-
veution,' superior presses, y will be
big seller" and the like, would not bs
fraudulent representations, If untrue, il
made in good faith and were mere express
sion0 Of expectation or belief ani were so
understood by the purchaser; they would
oniy become fraudulent and actonable
when the sel,or made them with no reason
able ground TO believe them true, and hav-
ing reasonable cause to believe that the
purchaser rolled upon them as true in max
ing his purchase. That would be giving be-
lief or knowledge. 1t is question for the
jury to say whether these expressions were
instters oil opinion or positive averments as
10 quality.
After supplying the wants OF the inner
man the jury retired, and about O'Clock
returned with verdict for Mr.. Brodie 10
recover $3.50, the value OF the stock sold
him by MIR. K pley, with interest aud costs
.,f ,Is
premo Court on exceptions
The case OF Homer Thompson vs. Z. j.
Brown wns next taken uD.
The case of Homer Thompson VS.. T. j.
Brown was resumed in County Court SAT-
urdey morning. 1t Is an action OF trover
brought by the Plaintiff to recover for
property on which he claims to have chat
tel mortgage, alleging that the property
was gold by ths defendant without bis con-
sent. Detsndsnt claims that be had the con-
cent of plaintiff in the sale and that the
avails Of tbs property went to plaintiffs
use. The testimony OF the plaintiff and
! two witnesses Friday closed one side of the
case aud Saturday morning was occupied
| with the direct examination of the detond-
ant. At IL O'Clock court took recess until
| O'Clock Monday afternoon. j. j. Monahau
and w. H. Burnap appeared for the plaintiff
| the defendant.
AT the opening Of Couaty Court Mou-
day Afternoon tue cross-examiuatou of the
defendant in the case OF Thompson VS..
/ Brown was taken up and c.nclu led. j. J.
| Monshan made the opening argument for
| the plaintiff, and NJ. ii. Alexander argued
! ior the defendant
During the afternoon William Newton,
! jr., was brought into court on an intorma-
tion flied by States Attorney Cushmau and
charged with kespin. nuisance. lie was
ADMITTED to bail in ths sum OF $3.50,
At the opening OF County Court Tues
day morning l.. +. Wilbur male the Goa
ing argument for the defendant and W. l..
Burnap closed for the plaintiff in the case
OF Homer Thompson vs. +. j. Brown.
Judge Tyler charged the jury who rendered
vsrdlct for the defendant.
The case OF William y. Hayes VS.. the
| Colchester mills was taken no with the