Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-04-15
apr15d1t"
SUPERIOR COURT
Case of International Harvester
Co. of America VS.. w. w.
Wier and William Har-
vey of Augusta Be-
gins Wednesday

Kennebec superior court was taken
up by the suit Of The International
Harvester Co. Of America vs. w. w.
Weir ct ais. The International Har-
vester Co. of America Is suing w. w.
Weir and William Harvey. both of
Augusta, for $1,000 due on promissory
notes maturing September and Deem
Der, 1913, and April, 1914, the notes
reading for $500, $500 and $400 respec-
lively. These notes were given in part
payment for a $500 traction engine,
bought by Mr.. Weir for use in haul
ing wood and the defendant now re-
fuses payment of the Several sums on
the ground that the plaintiff has failed
to fulfill it's contract.
The defendant asserts that certain
the tractor would perform led him to
believe it would suffice for the work
he planned to do. but that having
bought the engine he attempted to
carry out his plans and found the
traction engine incapable Of doing it
and not as promised by the agents of
the company. .f4
The plaintiff dissents from the re-
sponsibilities and obligations made by
the defendant on the ground that the
written contract as signed by the pur-
chaser is complete contract and I'M
qualified by any oral conversations.
All testimony bearing on this phase Of
the suit was admitted by Judge Beane,
though he acknowledged doubt as to
its admissibllity and suggested that a
verdict for the defendant would prob
ably mean that the case would be re-
ported to the law court on exceptions.
Attorney Maher for the plaintiff OBJ
iected TO all testimony along this line
and noted exceptions. Attorney
Thompson for the defendant sought TO
justify the admission of this evidence
on the grounds that it tended to show
that the contract as reduced to writ
ing was not complete, that the engine
did not Go good work" and that the
plaintiff. as seller CT the engine,
through it's agents, knew the purposes
for which it was purchased.
The plaintiff did not rest it's case
with the exceptions noted, however,
but followed the defendants case as
closely as if no exceptions had been
taken.
The defendant through the testimony
of w. ". Weir himself in particular,
and others incidentally. alleged that
in conversation with the company g
agents he had been told that the In
ternational traction engine would haul
four cords of wood four miles an hour,
would perform the work of u horses,
and was capable of doing the work he
contemplated as a business. After the
engine was brought to Augusta, the
defendant asserts. a trial trip was
made which was entirely unsatisfac-
tory and according to the terms of the
agreement on the back Of the written
contract he notified the company
which was to accept the engine back
If not made satisfactory and refund
him $500 paid in and his promissory
notes. It was brought out in the tes-
timony that a suit is also pending trial
w. w. Weir vs. The international
Harvester Co. Of America for the re-
covery Of $500 paid toward the pur-
chase Of the engine.
Through its agent and through OPP
cldtOI oil wait, VIII GOuuuCtcu Tic
trial trip of the tractor. the plaintiff
sought to show that the performance
Of the tractor was satisfactory so far
as the tractor itself was concerned
and failed to please the defendant on
ly because the condition Of the roads
was extremely poor and the cart haul
ed SO constructed that it impeded the
success Of the trial. It was further al
legged that the defendant made no COM
plant as to the "workability" Of the
engine until certain tentative business
plans were frustrated
The court adjourned until $50 this
morning upon the completion Of the
direct examination Of Mr.. Van Watt
expert operator for the Harvester Co
The criminal docket viii lbe taken ur
beginning Friday morning and the
assignments are as follows:
7e-State VS.. Edward Fontaine
70-State VS.. Manuel Maza and
Jose MaZa.
71-State VS.. Jose Maza.
estate VS.. Napoleon Loubier.
Estate VS.. Fred Lake.
=
GIVE olinaeo anrIAr