Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1917-03-15
Spring Green Case

In the cast of Mrs. Mary Finkelso
If Chicago vs.. Frank A. Core Of Lon
Rock, and-L. F. Wells and s. I. Hoe
yer of Spring Green, the jury returne
! special verdict Tuesday evening
Mrs. Finkelson resided in Sprin
Green for many years, her husban
being In business before his death
they accumulated property and tn
business block they had was wort.
about $4,000. She traded this for
piece Of land in Dakota and receives
3, 900 in cash. The land was suppose,
% be worth about $4,000. 1t was stat
I'd that Core had paid about 1920
or the land and on the other hand
vas shown it was not worth NOR
han $1,400. There was considerabl
Inference Of opinion on this point, va
les having been obtained from pee
Die near the farm. They did not Ell
lgree.
The Special Verdict
1. Did the defendant Wells,
for the purpose of inducing the
plaintiff to purchase the land in
Dakota represent to the plaintiff
that he had been on said land In
Bowman county. and knew all
about it, and that it was just as
good land as there was In North
Dakota; just as fine, and that it
was worth four thousand dollars
or more?
Answer: Yes.
2. If you answer the first ques-
ton Eyes" then we're such repre-
sensations as to the quality and
value Of said land understood by
the plaintiff as an expression of
opinion?
Answer: No.
3. IF YOU answer the first ques-
ton "ves." was the plaintiff in
duced to purchase said land by
reason Of such representations?
Answer: Yes.
4. IF you answer the first cues
ton ives" did plaintiff rely ON
such representations in making
the purchase Of the land?
Answer: Yes.
S. Did the defendant Wells, for
the purpose of inducing the plain
tiff to purchase said land repre-
sent to the plaintiff that he had a
partv who would take said land and
pay $500 cash down and the bal
ance on long time?
Answer: Yes.
6. If you answer question num-
Der 5 Eyes," was the plaintiff in.
duced to purchase said land by
reason Of such representation?
Answer: Yes.
z. II you answer question num-
Der 5 "ves," then did plaintiff rely
on said representations in making
the purchase Of the land?
Answer: Yes.
s Did the defendant Core for
the purpose Of inducing the plain
tiff to purchase said land represent
to the n1aintiff that both he and
said Wells had been on said land
and knew it and that 1t was as
good land as any out in Dakota,
and was worth about $50 per acre?
Answer: Yes.
9 If YOU answer question num-
Der ives" then were said repre-.
presentations as to the quality and
value Of said land understood by
the plaintiff as an expression of
opinion?
Answer: No.
10. II you answer question mum.
Der 3 ives" then was the plain.
tiff induced to purchase said land
by reason Of such representations?
Answer: Yes.
II. If you answer question NUM-
Der s eyes," then did plaintiff rely
on such representations in making
the purchase Of the land?
Answer: Yes.
IL. Did the defendant Core for
the purpose Of inducing plaintiff
to purchase said land represent to
the n'aintiff that he had purchas.
er who would take that 100 acres
for $50 per acre?
Answer: No.
Is. If you answer question nam
ber - ives" then was plaintiff
induced to purchase said land by
reo~~r ~ en"'' representations?
Answer: No.
Il. If you answer question num-
Der IL Eyes" then did the plain
tiff rely on such representations
in making the purchase Of the
land?
Answer: No.
The court will fix the amount Of the