Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1912-09-19
YANKEE HILL
WAS TOO HIGH
An Automobile Could Not
Chug, Chug, Up the
Incline.
BIG LAW SUIT FOLLOWED
Sank City Firm Must Pay
Back Money Advanced
For Machine.
BIG LAW SUIT FOLLOWED
Yankee Hill! 1t must be steep.

Yankee Hill! 1t must be steep.
An automobile tried to go up and
could not and thereby hangs an auto
mobile tale as we'll as law suit In cir
cult court. Alvin J. Cooper is rural
mail carrier at Plain and decided that
an automobile would save him time
and bring the mail to the customers
much earlier. He purchased mach
inc of the Huerth-Schaefer Auto
company of Sank City and when be
attempted to go up Yankee hill there
was delay. Mr. Cooper claimed the
machine would not do the work as
represented and demanded his money
back, returning the machine. In the
meantime the company which made
the machine failed and the Sank City
firm claimed 10 be agents only. There
was an agreement and the Sank City
firm claimed they would abide by that
and nothing else. The result was
suit and the firm must now return to
Mr.. Cooper the sum of $3.50, the
amount paid for the machine, with IN
terest after the return of the machine.
Bentley, Kelley & Hill represented the
mail carrier and the Sank City firm
employed outside attorneys. The case
went to the jury in the form of a
special verdict the questions and
answers being as follows:
/. Did the defendeudants, or either
of them, at any time during the nego-
tiations for the sale of the car in ques-
ton say if the car was not satisfactory
to the plaintiff there would be no sale?
Answer: Yes.
2. Did the defendants, or either of
them, at any time during the negotia-
lions for the sale of the car in question,
say that this car would go up Yankee
hill?
Answer: Yes.
3. If you answer question No. 1
and No. 2, yes, then name the defen-
dant or defendants that made such
statements.
Schaefer.
4. If you answer question No. l
and No. 2, or either of them yes,
was the plaintiff induced
to buy the automobile in question be-
cause of his belief in and reliance upon
the truth of such statements?
Answer: Yes.
5. Was the trouble with the car here
in question caused by the failure of the
plaintiff to properly operate or care
for the car?
Answer: No.
6. Did the plaintiff at the time he
returned the car to the defendants,
demand that they return the consider
alton which he gave for the same?
Answer: Yes.
Among the witnesses were Alvin ].
Cooper, J. J. Cooper, Michael j.
Paulus, Lottie Cooper, William Ruta,
William Born, William Prielipp,
August Huerth, Arthur Lanich and
Henry Schaefer.
Other Cases,
The case of Thomas O'Hara VS.. Isaac
Cohen was settled.
The case of Maud Waldo VS.. Chas.
Waldo was continued.
The case of Emil Backm an VS.. Fred
w. Eilenberg was settled.
The case of the State of Wisconsin
VS.. Albert Hockins was dismissed.
Lulu Adams, nee Christopher, Bara-
boo, has been granted a divorce from
James Adams. Desertion is the ground
for the suit. No property and no
children.
Judgement was granted in the case
of Ell. IL. Stanley and others VS.. Charles
Marrah and others.
A divorce was granted IN the case OF
Elizabeth Kinnamon VS.. Luce Kinna.
mon, both of LaValle. There is 8
grown daughter. Mrs. Kinnamon il
60 receive $500 according to the de
cision.
w. A. Wyse of Reedsburg is to con.
duct the sale in the case of Jennie
Clemens VS.. Diza e. Davis.
Judgment was rendered the plain