New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1917-05-09
STOCK WORTHLESS
VICTIMS WIN SUIT
GoGC1SBERG GIVEN JUDGMENT
IN COURT CASE AGAINST
w. H. BOETTGER.
DEPENDENT TO ASK REVERSAL.
OF DECISION BEFORE sU-
PREME BENCH.

decision was handed down by Judge
Olsen Friday in the long drawn out case
OF George Guggisberg against William
II. Boettger, involving some $1,000.
over the sale of stock in a Twin Citv
corporation, which has failed to materi-
alize. Mr.. Guggisberg was given the
decision, Mr.. Boettger being ordered bv
the court to pay the amount with in
terest at 6 per cent from Nav 20, 1912
to the present time The suit was
started about two years ago. but has
been advanced on the calandar from
term to term, and was tried in chambers
before Judge Olsen in March last, and
taken under advisement at that time.
Owing to the prominence of the parties.
considerable interest has been taken in
the case by the public.
Case Will Be Appealed.
The case will be appealed to the
supreme court, according to Pfaender e.
Erickson, attorneys for Mr.. Boettger.
The claim of the defense is that Mr..
Boettger had no interest in the sale of
the stock, except that he was EMPLOYED
by the stock salesman to convey him
around the county, furnishing team
for that purpose.
According to the evidence B. Costberg
appeared in New Ulm in the spring Of
1917, representing the Ware Grain
Binder Attachment company, manu-
tacturers OF grain binding attachments
Tor reapers. His mission here was to sell
stock OF the company, which he repre-
sented. 1t is alleged that he en-
gagged Mr.. Boettger to assist him in the
sale OF the stock. It was also claimed
at the trial Costberg received so per cent
OF the money received, while he was to
pay Boettger per cent to take him
around the country districts, introduce
the stock salesman to. his farmer friends.
furnishing horse and buggy for the
purpose.
Claims Misrepresentation.
1t appears that they first approached
Mr.. Guggisberg at his farm home in
Sigel township, who claims that thru the
representations made by Mr.. Boettger
he bsught $500 worth of the stock, pay.
ing cash. He claims that it was repre-
sented to him that the binding attach
ment was being used by the farmers of
South Dakota, that it was being manu-
featured in large lots at Midway, and
that the company also owned Irvine
factory located at Winthrop, and that
the statements were false; that the at
tachment had never been used in South
Dakota or elsewhere, except for the
purpose of trying it out, and in fact it
was at that time only in an experimental
stage.
Others to Get Money Back.
Five other farmers, Frank H. Seifert.
G. Kassuelke, Martin Mohr, Henry
Holm and August Hoffman,, made
practically the same complaint, alleging
that thru the influence of Boettger they
purchased stock in the concern, which
proved to be worthless. The amounts
received from the six farmers were as
follows: Guggisberg, $500; Seifert, 500:
Kassuelke, 5000; Mohr, $500; Holm,
$500; Hoffman,, $500; total of 81, ZOO.
When it was discovered that the stock
was of no value, that the company was
insolvent and that nothing could be
collected from Costberg, suit was started
against Boettger, as party to the deal.
The other victims assigned their in
terests to Guggisberg, that the suit
might be brought in one action.
Judge Olsen sustained every conten-
ton made by the plaintiff and ordered
judgment as stated.
Mr.. Boettger contends that he made
no claims for the machine or the company
except that he had seen it at work at the
Brown County Fair, when it worked
perfectly, and he still believes that but
for that changed conditions brought
about by the war, the company would
have made good.