Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1921-11-11
Case Attracts Much Atten-
ton Because of ''HOsS
Trade" Features.
Many Wit
neSSeS
VERDICT FAVORS
PLAINTIFF IN
TOTAL CLAIMS
Defendants COunterclaims Elk.
ceed Amount Sued For BY
Aggrieved Party

The case of Fred c. Haines VS.. C..
H. Wirth attracted more attention and
took up more time in circuit court this
week than any other case on the cal
endar.
Just why this controversy which led
two men into court in a bitter fight
should have been of more than pass
| ing interest is probably explained from
| the nature of it, 1T was case the
elements of which were just like al
0ld-fashioned 'hoss trade, remarked
one of the lawyers connected with the
dispute. And most men love 'hoss
| trade"
| About a year ago Fred Haines was
| the owner Of a mercantile business
land n home in Keystone, Ia. and c.
| II. Wirtf owned a farm of 2S7 acres
| near Ingram. known as the Gagnon
| farm for the reason that Louis Gag
non. a pioneer settler, had owned and
occupied the place for many years.
Exchange Not Satisfactory
IIaines wanted to dispose of his
property in Iowa and Wirth desired
TO sell his farm. Becoming aware of
these facts C. |. Fisher. real estate
agent of Ladysmith, got the men to-
gether and deal was made. But the
trade did not prove satisfactory 10
either party. After Haines had been
in possession of the farm for awhile
he began to suspect that there were
not as many plowed acres in the place
as had been represented to him; that
not as much land had been fall ploweh
as he had been led to believe; that
there was not so much hay and straw
in the barns. and potatoes i'll the Gel
lar. and small tools in the tool she'd,
as he had paid for.
So Haines got some of his new
neighbors to help him measure the
plowed land. And he measured the
hay and the potatoes and looked 1of
the straw. He searched for partic-
nlar loading chain which he supposed
was included with the small tools ne
had purchased with the farm. Ihe
chain was gone HaineS came TO thc
conclusion that he had been stung.
Thereupon he started an action III Ia"
10 recover damages, and making cet'
tain money demands In all ms ciaihS
rotaled around $500.
Counter Claims
Mr.. Wirth denied the allegations SGT
M in plaintiffs complaint and Droughl
counter claims against the pialntiH III
his answer, amounting to $o,4u9.
Wirth alleged that Haines msrepfe-
scnted the condition and the value 0i
the residence property in Keystone
Iowa. and that he misrepresented the
cost of the stock of goods ne hau ac
ouired from the plaintiff in the e4-
change of property.
Mr.. Haines engaged McGili WI
liams to prosecute his case. Wirth
rotained Thomas & Fisher, or thls
citv. and d. e. Voris, of Marion, la.
4 large number of witnesses were
subpoenaed in this case. all but TWO oe-
ING for the plaintiff. The Haines Wit
nesses were John Wilbert Il. ~ Gruh-
seth. Iver BergstrOm, Frank Ihatchet'
r r. McFarane, Mrs. Fred flames
Richard Haines. Paul Gundlcck, FREQ
Gates. A. f. Fisher, c. |. Fisher, LOUIS
Cognon. Albert Lcssard, Frank Harvey
and Pat Doar Mrs. Wirth, wife or the
defendant. testified in her husDanus
behalf and she made a GOOD Wlthess'
The Jury empancled to try this case
was composed of G. w. BartZ, Ioh9
Conrath. II. J. Cornelissen, Nj. ). Cllne'
r r Ducklow. Walter Fillion. w. tt.
NIorcu Charles Rhaban, II. r. Scott'
TT. r. Strong, Howard Simons, }. W.
whitney. After weighing the testi-
mony and the evidence the jury
brought in the following
Special Verdict
Question /. When negotiating Ior
tho nurchase of the farm, did the de-
fendant in order to induce the pam
tiff TO make such purchase falsely rep
resent that there was two hundrea
acres of the, land which had been
nIowed and that one hundred acres
thereof was then fall pl0wed!
Answer: Yes"
Question 3 If you answer question
! ives" then was the plaintiff induced
thereby to purchase said farm OelleV-
ING said representation to be true?
Continued on page IL,