Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-01-17

demonstrated it to them at Portland.
1t went well up Grove street hill in
Portland. He stated that he did not
advise Maurice Brisk to take the
car, but Hall was quite insistent to
make the sale. After the repairs had
been made witness had not given any
assurance that the bill would be paid.
Mrs. e. Heyman of New York,
daughter Of Mr.. Brisk, stated that at
no time was any writing on the back
of any paper read to them by Hall.
Maurice Brisk of Gardiner stated
that only on the trip from Portland
to Gardiner was the car out in a
rainstorm before it was taken to the
garage; according to. his knowledge.
Defense 80.
The defense in the case of Brisk VS..
the Falmouth Garage & Tire Co,
was then outlined by Attorney Good
speed. Defense claimed that the car
was q demonstrator and was 1919
model, as Hall had said it was. Mau
rice Brisk and Ernest Bowler. de-
Tense claimed, gave Mr.. Hall assur-
ance that Jacob Brisk would buy the
car and acting upon that assurance,
Hall had driven the car to Gardiner
The price of the car was $1100. At
ter the car had been seen in Gardi-
ner, Mr.. Brisk refused to sign the
contract for $110O, saying that it was
too much money. Finally, Hall had
sold the car for $1,000, and Mr.. Brisk
signed the contract. On the matter
of guarantee. Hall had told Brisk
that no garage would guarantee a car
against repairs except through the
makers guarantee against inherent
defective parts. Hall had given Maui
rice Brisk a written order for Mr..
Bradstreet to teach him to run the
car. Defense claimed that Brisk
bought the car and signed the con-
tract by his daughter, the contract
providing only for the makers guar
antees against defective parts; that
the garage repairs were not caused
by any defective parts but by misuse
of the car and should consequently
be paid for.
Charles W. Ladd. connected with
the Falmouth Garage & Tire Co., in
1919, was called as the first witness.
He was then half owner in the BUSH
ness. In December 1918 when he was
an agent Of the Chevrolet Motor Co.,
he had sold the car in question to
the garage company. He said it was
a model F. AS, a 1919 model and
was exhibited at the auto show as a
1919 model. He said the car and tires
were in good condition when Mr..
Brisk took the auto, and it had not
beef run over 600 miles. About a
week previous he had made a person
al examination of the car, the tires,
motor, clutch. etc, being in good
condition. He identified carbon copy
of contract purported to be signed by
Brisk, as page from the order book
Of Mr.. Hall, the auto agent. On the
back Of the contract there was the
makers guarantee. He believed the
original contract was mailed to Brisk.
The car was brought to his garage
for repairs about a month later. A
bill was rendered to Brisk for the re
pairs. One item was for new dis
tributor. He testified as to distribu-
tor troubles and said that this one
looked as though 1t had been over
heated. He identified the invoice
bill of the car.
Mr.. Ladd testified that the model
Chevrolet cars which came out after
July 81, 1918, were 1919 cars. The
date on the engine does not indicate
the year OF the car. He had known