The Baraboo news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1884-1911, 1911-04-06
JURY DISAGREES
IN MACHINE .n,...aeE
Wis historical
They Could Not Determine
Whether or Not Mr..
Plat Was Agent.
From Fridays Daily

chine case of George Staudenmayer VS..
William Siggelkow and George Weld
enkOpf, who formerly sold farm ma.
chinery on Third avenue in this city.
Last summer Mr.. Staudenmayer of
Caledonia went to Sam Platt and
placed an order for hay loader. Mr..
Platt did not sell that particular make
but had arrangements with the firm
of SiggekOw & Weidenkopf by which
he could get the machines through
them. The machine was ordered and
when it came the purchaser was nOti-
fed. Mr.. Staudenmayer sent his son
for the machine and a check of $4,000
TO pay for it. The machine was load
ed upon the wagon at the stand of
SiggelkOw & Weidenkopf, the whole
being in boxes or "knOcked down" as
the expression is used. Mr.. Stauden-
mayer claimed that when the machine
was opened some of the parts were
broken, d portion of the paint was off
and that it was not of 1910 make as
agreed upon. 1t was further stated
that he agreed to settle the matter for
something like So 90 if the new parts
were provided. Ifthe new parts were
secured it was claimed they were not
delivered and in due time the machine
was brought to BarabO2 by the pur-
chaser ard left standing on Third
avenue. Later it was taken to the lot
on which stands the city hall and
there the winds of winter have sung a
solemn requiem through the wheels
and Stats to the passerby.
Special Verdict.
A special verdict was submitted to the
jury and it was impossible for them 10
tell whether or not Mr.. Platt was the
agent for the defendants. It was
claimed that the check of $4,000 was
given by Mr.. PIatt to Siggell1ow &
Weidenkopf and that they in turn paid
him a commission. The machine had
been purchased of Mr.. Platt, had been
delivered by tie other firm and both
had had the check. There were many
points of law brought out in the case
but the matter was so complicated and
so difficult to decide that after being |
out almost twelve hours, the jury came |
back after o'clock Friday evening |
with the disagreement result. AS
they could not agree on the answer TO
the first question the whole is left un-
decided The questions in the special !
verdict as given to the jury were as
follows:
1. Was Mr.. Platt the agent of the |
defendants in making the sale of the
loader to the plaintiff?
2. At the time the loader was de- |
livered to the plaintiff at BaraboO
June, 1910, was it broken or defective? |
3. In June, 1910, was there gen.
eral custom with reference to the de
livery of the latest make of machines,
such as is claimed by the plaintiff?
4. Was the loader returned to the |
defendants within a reasonable time |
after the discovery of defects in the
same?
5. What sum will reasonably COM |
pensate the plaintiff for his two trips
to Baraboo to get and to return the
loader?
The following were the witnesses:
VIM. Siggelkow, Sam Platt, George |
Staudenmayer, George Weidenkopf, |
H. e. Stone, Henry Schultz, Ed.
Scnirmer, Ralph Staudeumayer and |
Charles Staudenmayer.
The jury consisted of the following; |
Peter Henry, f. M. Arndt, Anton |
VonWald, Aug. H. Meyer, Paul
Luther, J. F. McGinnis, Willis Ryan,
Robert Denzer, Ed. Sweeney, F. H.
Getchell, J. P. Steidtman and George
Geier.
Bentley, Kelley & Hill were the at
torneys for Siggelkow & Weidenkopf. |
Devorce Granted
A divorce was gran ted in the case of |
Bertha Newell VS.. Fremont Newell |
Cruel and inhuman treatment was
given as the cause of the action. Mrs. |
Newell, who resides on Walnut street, !
Baraboo, was given the custody
os the three children. The defendant
is TO pay $500 week to the family.
The case of Verna Day VS.. Marvin
Dav was continued.
In the case of stephen E. Mathews
" A. Pelton and Guy Plummer,
the nlaintiff must file security for
costs.