Daily Kennebec journal., 1916-04-14

The next witness was Richard S.
Devin of Augusta, who gave testi-
mony regarding the condition Of the
car Witness had been in the automobile
repair business eight years, having
been employed for five years at FL
fields garage in Augusta. He knew the
value Of second hand cars. Last fall
Mr.. Houlehan's Ford car was towed
into the garage but he was not in
structed to thoroughly overhaul it. At
the garage they made a few minor re-
pairs to make it run. The machine was
all shaken to pieces and worn out. 1t
was a 1910 car. When Mr.. Ellinwood
brought the car in and a new crank
shaft. new bearings, new pistons, new
valves and new parts around the steer
ing gear were put in. Witness consid-
cred that 1912 Ford car with new
parts in it and body on it would sell
easy for $500 after it had been over
hauled. When he returned the car to
Mr.. Houlehan he should think $1O0 was
all it was worth.
Upon cross-examination witness said
the car was no better after $50 had been
put out on it than before and he did
not tell them that it would be worth
more after than before. The second
time he saw the car the crank shaft
was broken.
Defendants Claim
Attorney Atkins then opened the de-
tense and at the same time also stated
the case of the plaintiff in lie suit
brought by Mr.. Houlehan against Mr..
Ellinwood to recover $143.21 for the
remaining payment on the purchase
price and the price Of extras on the
car. He stated that the real title of
the action was fraud instead of deceit.
Mr.. Ellinwood alleged that Mr.. Houle-
han was guilty of a fraud in the sale
Of the car The defense in the first
case claimed that there was no fraud
and Mr.. Houlehan sold the car in good
faith, not knowingly or willingly mis-
representing any material parts. The
defense claimed in substance that Mr..
Soule and Mr.. Ellinwood were at the
garage in Gardiner when the car was
dissembled and they could get a de-
cent view of the machine and they were
satisfied with it for their purpose They
went second time to Gardiner to look
the car over. Mr.. Houlehan neither the
first nor the second time told them that
it was a 1912 model car but had told
them that the man, who had sold it to
him. had said it was a 1912 model car.
And when Mr.. Ellinwood bought the car
he had said. II have looked it over and
l will take a chance at it. The defense
further claimed that Mr.. Houlehan paid
s125 cash for the automobile when, he
bought it, he had a truck body put on
it costing $65, he had it painted and
paid Fifield Bros. $50 for oyerhauling it.
Mr.. Houlehan and his own men had nut
in labor amounting to $40 and with
other repairs the car stood him rising
$500 in cash when he sold the car to
Mr Ellinwood. And the defense claim
ed that Mr.. Ellinwood never complain
ed to Mr.. Houlehan until Mr.. Grover.
VINO was in the employ Of Mr.. Houle-
han, tried to recover the remaining pay
ment from Mr.. Ellinwood.
In the case of Houlehan VS. Ellinwood
the plaintiff claimed a balance due Of
$143.25.
Peter A. Houlehan Of Gardiner said
on the stand that last November he had
sold Ford car to Mr.. Ellinwood of All
gusta. Mr.. Soule saw the car first and
later Mr.. Ellinwood and Mr.. Soule ,ook.
ed over the car. Mr. Soule and Mr.
Ellinwood went out in the car. Mr.
Soule did not seem to understand tho
car and would let the clutch in too
quick ana stall the engine. They drove
10 Farmingdale and the car went finely.
MT. Elilnwood agreed to pay 1926 down
ana tne remainder in 80 days. The ex-
tras were to be sold to Mr.. Ellinwood
at cost. Three days later witness had
asked Mr.. Ellinwood how the car was
running and he answered, First rate"
Witness had since seen the car in Au-
gusta several times with a load Of fur