Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-30
EXCEPTIONS SUSTAINED.
In kennebec County Action for Deceit
in Sale of Farm.

The law court has handed down the
following rescript in the Kennebec county
case of George a. Pierce VS.. Charles j.
Cole, drawn by Associate Justice Albert
X. Savage of Auburn:
l. In an action for deceit in the sale of
a farm, wherein it was alleged that the
defendant misrepresented the amount of
hay which had been cut upon the farm
in years past, requested instructions by
the defendant that the plaintiff must
show that the defendant Intentionally
made false representations of the amount
of hay cut on his farm; that the defend
ant knew that the representations re-
garding the hay were false, or so reck-
lessly made as a fact without regard to
their truth or falsity, when he was able
to ascertain their truth or falsity; and
if the statements which the defendant
made regarding the hay were based upon
honest beliefs that they were true, and
not recklessly made by him as a fact
when the truth could have been ascertain
ed, and if he did not in making these
statements intend to deceive, the action
cannot be maintained; so, if the defend
ant did not know that the statements
were false or did not reeklessly state
larger amount when he could have as
certained the actual amount, but gave
the plaintiff the best judgment without
intent to deceive: SO, also, unless the
plaintiff shows that there was an intent
on the part of the defendant to deceive
the plaintiff concerning some material
fact by representation made with the
knowledge of the falsity of this fact, or
made recklessly without regard to the
truth or falsity of the fact We're prop
erly refused. They do not correctly state
the law.
.. If the person makes a statement of
a positive fact, which is material, the
truth of which can be ascertained as of
his own knowledge, and that statement
is untrue, and if he made the statement
for the purpose of inducing another party
to act upon it, and the other party rely
ing upon the statement, without knowl-
edge of its falsity on his own part, acts
thereon to his damage, it is such mis-
representation as will maintain an action
of deceit.
8. In an action for deceit it Is not ne
cessary that the false statements COM
planned of should have been made with
a fraudulent purpose and with intension
to cheat or defraud. Good faith in MAX
ing the statement is immaterial.
4. The admission of inadmissble EVIL
dence which is harmless will not support
an exception.
5. When in an action for deceit in
selling a farm a witness was asked If
the defendant had made any general
statement to him about the whole
transaction, selling the farm and every
thing" he answered in the affirmative.
He was then asked what he said and re-
piled: 81 asked him and he said it repre-
scented the roller. / said, Mr.. Cole, that
roller isn't ON the list He said That is
your roller and | says Very well. that
is your idea. He said, The trap wasn't
set for you, it was set for the other fell
low
Held, That the entire conversation not
only does not show that the statement
related to selling the farm" but shows
clearly that it did not relate to selling
the farm The evidence was not only
inadmissible, but was calculated to be
positively mischievous and prejudicial to
the defendant. The evidence having been
let in through a misunderstanding as to
it's scope, the defendants motion to have
1t stricken from the record should have
been granted, and the jury instructed to
disregard it. This was not done.
Exceptions sustained.