The Penn's Grove record., 1921-09-30
County Court
Decides Ownerships
NeighbOrs Report flinders Farm
Sale. Wife Given Automobile

of Sospocles Ionanow vs.. William
!. Fleming and Agnes Fleming. w. B
!, Surran represented the plaintiff anc
Mr.. billiard the defendants.
Ionanow and his wife, formerly re
sided near Pixies Peak. Colorado. but
came TO Jersey for Mrs. Ionanow s
health. Reading Of some farms for
sale they got ia communication with
Nj. Fleming and finally came on to
see him and the properties he had to
offer. The farm where Mr.. Fleming
resides was offered to them for $500
and they deposited $4,000, represent
ing 10 per cent, pending the delivery
Of the deed. Il L claimed b. the
!nanows that Mr.. Fleming said the
> farm contained 81 acres, they were to
nave a cow, 40 chickens and some
farm implements, that the place was
free of all incumbrance and a clear
title could be given. They charged
that they later found there were only
81 acres in the place; that there was
a mortgage of $1,000; that the place
belonged to a Mr.. Ferguson and that
there were only about 200 chickens.
They acknowledged that they signed a
paper p~urported, it was alleged, by
Mr.. Fleming to be a report to a Farm
Agency that he represents but which
proved to be a contract to purchase.
The plaintiff said he had demanded
the return of his money because the
matter had been mi~srepresented to
him and not because he wa told he
was paying too much for the place.
1t was declared that when they took
Mr.. Fleming to account for what he
had told them he agreed to knock off
$500 to have them satisfied.
The defense was that at no time was
the plaintiff told that the farm con-
taied 81 acres and that the paper ne
and his wife signed was marked
81 acres and also bore a statement of
the $1,000 mortgage; that the deed had
been ready for several weeks but
never called for. There vas a COM
plete denial Of any misrepresentation
Mr.. Fleming said the reason he
agreed 10 take $500 from the purchase
price was upon condition he be allow
ed the electric lighting outfit.
A neighbor of Mr.. Fleming testified
he had talked with the Inanows and at
no tine did they raise the question Of
number of acres; that they seemed to
believe they were being asked to pay
too much for the farm, in view Of the
fact they had been offered another
place much cheaper. He said he told
them the house alone was worth
$500.
The farm on sale IS the former
Sarah Thompson farm, below Courses
Landing. where Mr.. Fleming lives.
At the trial there was a sensation.
Attornev SurTan told Mrs. IuanOw to
"look sick She tainted over. but
came to on the advice Of her attor-
nev. The jury also tumbled for the
sick lady, Who has been strong
enough to walk six miles to Penns
Grove. The feinting jury gave a YER
diet of S562.96 in favor of the defen-
daut.
Who Owned The Automobile
The last case heard by Judge Don
ges on Friday was that Of Daniel Y,
Summerill, Jr., administrator of John
X. Duffy. deceased, vs.. Laura V. DUFFY,
T. C. billiard appeared for the plain
tiff and J. F. Sinnickson for the de-
PENDANT. This was Ieplevin proceed
incs to establish the title and right OF
possession of a certain Studebakel
touring car. It was agreed that the
estate of the former well-known Jus.
tice of the Peace of Penns Grove, wa;
insolvent. and the auto was needed t
a the creditors a dividend. The
!, defendant IS the widow of the de.
ceased.
Frank W. Duffy, a son, declared hi!
father owned the machine and it wa!
to him he went for permission to USE
:. it: that it was parked always in hi:
fathers garage and the license was i
his name. The auimous Of young
Duffy was shown by his own state
ment that he was not on frendl!
terms with his mother 0 does n
speak to her.
James s. Cunningham, Penns Grove
representative of the Motor Nehlcl'
Department, said the license for thu
car was in Duffy's name but furthe'
than that he did not know who owned
it..
painted the car at DutFys instruction.
at a cost of $500 but had never beer
paid. 1t was proven he had neve.
; rendered a bill to Mrs. Duffy.
Mrs. Duffy testified that she haC
owned three cars. an Overland, Buicl
and the ~Studebaker but the licenses
were always in her husbands name
She has a drivers license.
Five witnesses were called to prove
that Duffy had always referred to tbs
S~tudebaker car as the property O
his wife. One testified that Duff!
had a purchaser for Mrs. Duffy.
Buick and urged her to sell for he
would give her the S~tudebaker. Thi:
exchange was made. Three of the
witnesses said they knew positively
that Mrs. Duffy had refused the use
of her a to her husband, and in one
instance he had to borrow a machine
to- make a trip.
The ilrv found for the defendant.