Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1914-01-30
)FoRp PAVING COMPANY SUING r.
I 4. ELY ron 5000 FOR RENT
! or MIXING PLANT.
DEFENDANT FILES COUNTER
CLAIM FOR 3s,157 DAMAGES
Claim, and Counter Claim Increased in
Rapid Succession Right UP to Begin.
ming o. TriaI-9uit Brought on Con.
tract For Lsaso Of Asphalt Mixing
Plant Ussd At Wintsrsst.

Company, OF Cedar Rapids. against r.
A. Elzy, Of this city, was brought to
trial in the district court late Thursday
afternoon. Because Of the large sums
involved, the case 10 the most import
ant reached this term. AS several days
will be required to try 1t, it will prob
ably be the last Jury trial of the term.
Just what the issues were and tA
amount Of the claims Of the plaintiff
and the defendant were not fully de-
veloped until after the case was called
for trial. A series Of amendments to
the PLAINTIFFS petition and amended an
swers Of the defendant increased first
the Ford company's claim and Elzy's
counter claim.
Involves $4,000.
As stated in the last amendments
filed the Ford company alleges Ely
owes 1t 5000. Ely lists items in his
counter claim that total $6.157. The
suit involves q contract for the lease
Of an asphalt mixing plant, owned by
the Ford company and rented to Elzy
in the fall Of 1912. The plant was used
by Ely on paving contract at Win
terset.
According, to the contract Elzy was
to pay cents per square yard Of paw
ing laid for the use of the plant. The
paving laid amounted to 3S.777 square
yards. This item of the claim amounts
to $2,714.
Other Items Of Claim.
The Ford company alleges that under
the contract Ely was to pay the
freight for the return Of the plant.
This, it is claimed, he failed to do. The
Ford company paid the freight and
added the amount SOL to it's claim.
Another item Of $714 is included in
its claim. which is alleged to be the
amount 1t cost the Ford company to
overhaul the plant and put 1t in as good
condition as when it was rented to
Ely.
According to contract, 1t il. claimed,
Elzy was to return the plant Nov. I. It
was not returned until about JAN Is.
The Ford company alleges it needed
the machine for its own work, which
was delayed because the machine was
not returned. A claim Of $3.50 is made
for this delay.
Misrepresentation Alleged.
The sdse1eas md col.1te1 claim. II
based on alleged miSfepresSntation II
the plant, delays 70 the work, and ex-
ceptional cost because Of the incapacity
and broken down condition Of the mix
Ing plant. Elzy's attorney alleged the
plant was represented to have a capac-
ity OF 1.50o yards day, and that it was
In the best Of condition. It neither had
this capacity nor was IL in good condi-
ton, the defense claims In fact. 1t is
alleged that the machinery Of the plant
was In such poor condition that It
broke down repeatedly. Every time it
broke down the paving stopped. These
DELAYS. the defense alleges, totalled
thirty-nine days, and made 1t impos-
sible for Ely to complete his contracts
on time.
Because Of these delays Ely, is IL al
I'D. was at a large and unnecessary
tS use to keep his workmen and
gangs togethe.. It Is claimed further
that Ely spent large sums repairing
the plant. All these items, Including
cost OF parts. material and labor re-
pairing the plant, wages Of men so en-
pioyed. and wages Of men made idle
Whenever the plant broke down
summed up make the defendants
counter claim Of $6.157.
AS an additional defense 1t is alleged
that by oral agreement between Ford
and Ely. rental for the plant was not
to be paid until Elzy secured settle-
mentSfor the paving contracts. Such
settlement has not been had vet. It is
Claimed. Included among the witnesses
summoned are councilmen OF the town
OF Wtnterset.