Daily Kennebec journal., 1916-04-14
SUPERIOR COURT
Last of Civil Cases Heard Thurs
day-Verdict for Plaintiff in
Cases Of Ellinw00d vs..
EIlinwood

Thursdays session OF the superior
court was devoted to the trial OF the
last Of the civil cases to come before this
term and the cases on the criminal docket
viii be opened this morning.
The nrst cases to come before the court
were those Of G. A. Ellinwood Of Angus
ia Va. Peter A. Houlehan Of Gardiner and
Houlehan VS.. Ellinwood, two cases which
were tried as one. In the first case the
plaintiff brought action for alleged de-
ceit In the sale Of Ford automobile on
Nov. 8. 1915. to the defendant. The plain
tiff alleged that the defendant had told
him It was q 1912 model car. when 1t was
actually 1910 model car, and that the
defendant knew his statement was false.
The plaintiff also claims that the defend
ant had told him that the car had been
thoroughly overhauled and new parts
had been put in, which statements were
false. The plaintiff had paid SIS down
for the car and had promised to pay the
remainder later. According to the claim
Of the plaintiff the automobile was Of
little value and he sought damages in the
sum Of $780, Burleigh Martin Of Augusta
was attorney for the plaintiff and the
US1ouU0uL WdS IVP4 OS014SCu ~ W. ~ @@s-
kins Of Gardiner.
In the case of Ellinwood VS.. Houlehan
the Jury returned verdict for the plain
tiff for 1884,. In the case of Houlehan
VS.. Ellinwood, which was a suit for the
remaining payment OF $125 on the car and
for 1885 for extras, verdict was re-
turned for the plaintiff for $l45.73.
Case Opened
The first witness in the case was
George A. Ellinwood of Augusta, the
plaintiff in the first action. He testified
as to buying the car from Mr.. Houlehan
at Gardiner. Mr. Houlehan had told him
that it was a 1912 car, thoroughly over
hauled and should answer his purpose.
On the strength Of that statement he had
bought the car. Houlehan got in the car
with him to show him how to operate it
but on the way to Augusta the car skip
ped. Houlehan said he would fix it up
and send it up the next day. Witness
spoke of the condition of the car and said
that he had difficulty in climbing Bridge
hill. On another occasion when he was
at Pleasant hill he was obliged to leave
the car beside the road. He paid out in
repairs at the Capital Garage $116.O5 and
dt tHc garage tucy WdHlCu " w IhOAO
upon it. The last time he had the car
out it went to pieces and it was with
difficulty that the car was driven to
garage, where it has been since Dec. "a.
Mr.. Houlehan was the only man who
had demonstrated the car to him at Gar
diner. Witness had asked Mr.. Houlehan
if he could take it to Augusta to try
it out, but the defendant in the action
had refused to let it go, saying that
there was another man who might want
to look at it while it was out. Mr.. Hou-
lehan has said that the 1912 model was
the best that the Ford Co. had ever put
out. Later witness had asked Mr.. Houle-
han if it was a 1912 model car and when
Mr.. Houlehan had asserted that 1t was,
witness had told him that it was not, that
it was 1909 model. The car is not in
running order now. 1.-THE steering gear is
all pulled out: it's wonder / didn't
break my neck" the witness said. Mr..
Ellinwood had agreed to pay $3.50 for the
car and had paid $125 down. He testified
that if the car had been what it was rep
resented to him he would have paid the
balance to Mr.. Houlehan.
Upon cross-examination witness said
the engine and that he had not been
informed that good way to look at
car was to look at the engine. There
was not grease cup on the car when
he had looked at it. He didn't remem-
Der telling Mr.. Houlehan that he was
willing to take a chance on the car.
Witness had been told that he could
call up Mr.. Peacock if he wished to
find out about the condition of the car.
But witness had relied on Mr.. Houle-
hans word in purchasing the car.
Upon redirect examination witness
stated that he was not sued by Mr..
Houlehan until after he had brought
suit against Mr.. Houlehan. Witness
was familiar with Pope Hartford car
but his knowledge of cars would not
make him an expert.
A. A. Soule of Augusta was the next
witness. He testified that he is an
agent for a small automobile One day
he was in Gardiner and Mr. Houlehan
showed him an automobile. Upon going
back to Augusta witness told Mr.. Ell
linwood about it. Later Mr. Ellinwood
and the witness went to Gardiner and
the trade between Mr.. Ellinwood and
Mr.. Houlehan was made. Mr.. Houlehan
had told Mr.. Ellinwood that the car
was a 1912 model and had been thor
oughly overhauled. They examined the
car on the outside but did not give it
a thorough inspection. Witness did not
claim to be an expert on cars.
On cross-examination witness said
he did not know how much Mr.. Ellin-
wood had used the car in his business.
Mr.. Ellinwood had the machine but a
short time before he complained to the
witness about it. He did not remember
whether or not Mr.. Houlehan had said
on the day Of the trade that the man
who sold him the car had said it was
a 1912 model. Witness had not seen any
money passed between the parties.
Upon redirect he said that the car
skipped when they first rode in it and
Mr.. Houlehan was demonstrating Il.
w. B. Peacock Of Farmingdale tes-
titled that once when he was taking a
vacation Mr.. Houlehan had asked him
to go down to his garage and see what
the trouble was with his Ford car.