The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1902-10-18

Al. eALEN, OREGON. SATURDAY
uu..--uuuuua-.u-.
the piano. tat ucuis Indicate a ior
nal sale.
IL Vas a case whareir- to al appear
ances. neither fellow wanted TIE D
sno Win declared that the transsc
ton with Riggs constituted an uncon
ditional sale. while RiEss and wife
we're equally persistent fu susarinl
that the instrument vas received on
trial and that its sale vas corditiouaI
upon satisfactory service Il vas ur
20 the jury 70 adjust the controversy
which must have been a diEculs task
when the parties iuvolved are a muse
dealer and a druggist
The facts in the case are that. afrer
some Negotiations between the par
ties. WIN caused a piano 70 Be deliv
cred az the home of RiEEs. The latter
claiming 70 be dissatisfied with the
same. caused the instrument to Be re-
turned a few days later. The music
dealer refused 20 receive the music
box hack. and The eNpressman placed
the same On the Sidewalk IN front o.
an adjoining store building. where b
remained until declared a nuisance by
the city officers. and removed to the
city hall. pending a settlement Of the
controversy as 10 the ownership of
the property.
George G. Will the plaintiff. vas
the first witness called. He testified
that during the month of July. last
Mrs. Riggs came % his store and vas
looking over his stock Of instruments.
with the intention Of renting a plano
Witness represented to the prospective
customer that il would be but little
more expensive 70 invest in a piano
on the installment plan Mrs. Riggs
said she would consult With her hus.
band. Witness testified that at a sub.
sequent date. Riggs and his Eife both
entered his store. and. after a further
consultation. agreed to purchase the
piano for $500. on the installment
plan. paying $50 down. and monthly
payments OF SO.
w. ". Cherrington. another music
dealer who was also soliciting a sale
to Riggs. testified that about the time
Of the delivery Of the piano by Will to
Riggs. that he called on Riggs. who
told him that he had already purchased
piano, and later informed witness
that he had not made a purchase
W. G. Punk. an expressman. who
delivered the piano at Riggs home.
testified to the fact Mrs. Will was
called and substantiated the testi.
mony Of her husband as TO a distinct
agreement between her husband and
Riggs. for the purchase OF the piano.
This ended the case for the plain.
tin. McNary. for the defendant, moved
for a non-suit for the reason that the
alleged sale Of personal property ex.
ceeded $50 in value. for which no
memorandum Of the transaction had
been made The motion was over.
ruled, for the reason that evidence had
been introduced showing that the
piano had been delivered.
Zadoc Riggs was the first witness
for the defense. He related that he
made several visits to Wills store.
and stated that he consented 20 the
delivery at his home OF the piano in
controversy. only after the plaintiff
had insisted that he should take the
instrument on trial and examination.
The instrument was delivered at the
home OF the witness, but Mrs. Riggs
did not like tone OF piano. Notified
Will that they did not want to keep
the piano. but VIII came to house and
urged that II should be given a longer
trial. Telephoned win again. and no
titled him a third time that he wanted
the piano removed from the house. but
viii refused 10 do so. Witness then
caused the instrument 10 be returned
to the store Of plaintiff Riggs was al.
terwards recalled and testified that the
reason he at first told Cherrington that
he had purchased a piano was 10 rid
himself OF further solicitations from
that agent.
Mrs. Riggs was called and testified
in substance as did her husband. Miss
Maud Hirsch. who was in the music
store at the time the alleged transac-
ton was made. stated that she over.
heard a remark about the instrument
being taken on trial, but she could not
say whether the plaintin or defend
ant made the statement.