Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1893-05-04

EN-tOV. W. !. Dllllnp NUN Oh w HIeTDCTYt
Hon. L. Is. Taft and l.. Z. Wilbur, esq,
wree counsel for the plaintiff, and Mayor
lIaselton, Hon, W. l.. Burnap and Judge
Wales for the defendant.
Attorneys Ballard and Haselton used up
tho orenoon session OF the court with their
arguments in the Murray VS.. Jackson case.
At O'Clock Judge Tyler gave his instruc-
| tions to the jury and they retired, return
! ing in an hour with verdict OF $40 aud
costs for the plainsif.
THE RIPLEY CASE.
Immediately after the jury retired the
case Of David A. Brodie VS.. Edwin L. Rip
ley was taken up. An hour was consumed
in empauelling jury. Six jurors were ex-
cused because they had formed and ex
pressed opinion in the case. This OK
hausted the panel and four talesmen were
drawn, two Of whom were satisfactory.
Only thte, objections were made
The jury is composed OF tao following
gentlemen: Oliver Papineau OF Underhill,
&. +. johnson Of Wiliston, S. c. Bates and
| A. q. Narney Of Westford 1ha1de l..
Stevens OF Richmond, f. d. Baker and
John Nele of Essex H. NJ. Drew of Shell
burne, c. y. Murray, G. Il. Rumsey and
A. S. Wright of Burlington, Frank Hens
dale of st. George.
Lawyer Taft, in his opening statement
for the plaintiff said that the plaintiff
brought SUIT against the defendant, Edwin
H. Ripley to recover for 80 shares of stock
Of ths Eckerson Printing Press company,
which it was claimed the plaintiff was in
duced to purchase through mhrepresenta-
tions OF said defendant, and which they ex-
pected to show by the evidence. lie con
tinued, saying that tho first sale Of 20
aha eba Ia I'm I
1890, the plaintiff bargaining for the same
at the special instance and request of Mr..
Ripley, who, it was alleged, falsely and
fraudulentlv repre,entel to MIR. Brode
that the printing presses, owned by the
company, were valuable for job and news
paper printing; that they were superior for
such purpose to anything in use; that valid
letters of patent under laws OF tho United
States had been granted and issued for
the presses, etc, that 2O0O shares OF the
oompany's stock had been issued, OF which
the market value was, at least, $50 per
share and that the stock would soon lie soil
Ing Mt par; that Mr. Ripley said he va, an
officer OF the company and knew all about
its financial affairs, and that it was in q
very prosperous condition, and that there
, was sufficient surplus on hand to declare O
dividend of per cent January ! following,
1890 at the second instance OF Mr.. Ripley,
Mr.. Brodie bought 10 shares more of the
stock under similar representations. Mr.
Taft said thot the plaintiff averred that not
a single statement made by the defendan
I in selling tho stock was true and that in
stead of ths company being prosperous anc
the stock cling at par, il was vaueess ant
, always had been.
Judge Wae, stated tho defendants sid
of the case. He said that some two year
ago the defendant became interested in thu
Eckerson Printing Press company and al
ter making an investigation, bought 1O'
shares Of its stock, with the full contidenc
5 that it would be valuable stock; that n
Il that time everything depended on paten
on a press but Eckerson, who was a Yer.
!. Ingenious man, agreed to turn over to tn
company the right 10 manufacture and sci
= all presses he might thereafter invent; tina
Eckerson did invent presses but no applica
ton for patents upon them had been mad
- when Mr.. Brods purchased his first bate
of stock, therefore it was Improbable tina
Mr.. Ripley told the plaintiff that patent
had been secured on these presses; the
others in this city had purchased some c
the stock and were satiiied; that Ill
% Brodie approached Mr.. Ripley and aske
him about the stock; that the deiendau
told the plaintiff that the company expec
cd that the patent would be secured on ia
newspaper press; that Mr.. Ripley did NJ
tell Mr.. Brodio that dividend would be d.
A clared the Jenuary following but related
him what the facts were. that the compan
was progressing ard that they hoped
realize well on the property later on VINE
it was developed; that Mr.. Ripley had L
stock to sell but told Mr. Brodis that
TX that Brodie was shown a cstalogu
g, and he seemed deeply interested in the on
b. look of the company and wanted to get
lie in tho basement as he termed it; that NJ
Ripley never was an officer OF the compan
ou with the exception of being clerk for thr
8. months. Judge Wales seid the director
~ had neg lected tho business and the compaI
an was in ths condition that it Is; that the
g. was an interference with the Cox press al
81 those interested became dlsheartened b
ly Mr.. EcGerson had been at work in earne
all the while and hoped to accomplish mu
10, yet; that the stockholders wsre subscrioii
a again, being confidsnt the business wou
or soon be on successful basis. In fact, Sc
of Judge Wales, the defendant denies ever
thing set up by the plaintiff against him.
Mr.. Brodie, the plaintiff, then took
stand and testified substantially as stated
ng Lawyer Taft's opening statement, but,
d. course went into details more. lie c
Ike planned what Mr.. Ripley claimed to him W
nd In store for tho presses, and how the ste
of was eagerly sought for, and if thrown
the market would sell for $S5 share; Il
Ig- the job press was the greatest invention
a the age; that the company had a capital
In $500. 600 divided into shares OF SlOO ea'
ze. that $500, 900 of it was already sold. W
pc, ness relied solely upon the representati'
'ue made by the defendant whom he bought
to stock; that he never had any conversati
ar with Mr.. Ripley about the stock
a til the latter came to his OIL
nd. first, after which he averaged to
ira nnca "a dav. ba ado WAS ma1e a