Baraboo weekly news. [volume] (Baraboo, Wis.) 1912-197?, 1924-09-25

LOT JLIlS reason moi ION was maQ6
to reopen the judgment. This was
granted. There will be trial
later.
Reedsburg Farm Case
The case OF Frank j. RubensaI
against John Swafford, Matilda
Swafford, Citizens Bank and Rn.
dolph Kruger and wife was de-
cided by the jury in circuit court
in favor of the defendant, although
the judge has not made his de-
cision.
The farm in question is near
Reedsburg and has two or three
mortgages on it. John Swafford
is now on the farm and claims
Misrepresentation were made
when Rudolph Kruger sold the
place to him. Rubensal holds
second mortgage which he is
crowding.
Swafford had been on the farm
for some time before the purchase
and was supposed to know some
thing of its value.
Special Verdict
The following is abridged from
the long special verdict:
Question No. 1. Did the defen-
dant at any time during the nego-
tiations for the sale of the land
in question, and prior to the .ex-
change of, make the following
statements. CInsert your answer
Yes" or no" as you find the fact
to be after each of the following
subdivisions as to whether or not
the statements therein referred tG
were so made.)
a. That no part of this % acres
in question ever overlooked?
Answer. No.
b. That the % acres had never
been flooded water never stood
upon it and that it was all good
upland, high and dry?
Answer No.
That it would raise crops of
any kind in any season of the year.
Answer, Yes.
d. That the place was well
worth the personal property $780,
600. That it would easily sell for
$4,000 and that il Mr.. Swafford
didn't take it right away at the
price of $17500 he was going to
put the price up to 100000.
Answer, Yes.
G. That the cellar was dry. i
Answer, Yes.
(. That there was from 45 to
SO acres of upland on the place.
Answer, Yes.
Questions 2, and refer to rep
reservations.
Question 5. What was the actual
fair market value of the farm in
question at the time of the con-
tract
Answer, $13,500
In question 6 the jury found un
der certain conditions the value of
the farm was $13,950.
The witnesses: Rudolph Kruger
John Swafford. Matilda Swafford,
Ernie Busy, Charles Kirkpatrick.
George Harris, Warren Scott. Alex
ander Swafford, Paul Busy, F. r.
Bentley, Charles Westphal, Roy
Palmer, Herman Hoverman, Wal
ter Zimmerman, William Meyers,
Clarence Terry. John Claridge,
Otto Krause, Herbert Nussbaum,
Mrs. Herbert Nussbaum and Geo.
Sherwood.
The jury: Mrs. Lou Barringer,
Mrs. A. c. Clark, Fred Oil, Minnie
Mather, Theodore Marquardt, Julia
Scallon. H. o. Warren, Ella Ca
hoon, William Kinney. Henry Fer
Nor, Mrs Henry Foss, Mrs. Adolph
Fey.
Other Cases
The case of the Nash Sales Co,
VS.. A. L. Salem was placed at the
foot of the jury calendar.
Another Judge will hear the
case Of T. S Bunker VS.. Annie E.
Van Schoych. ;.
Sidney Alex testified in the case
of Kate Andrews VS.. Morris B
Bronstein. The trial viii be later.
Case Settled
The case of Winona Oil Co.
VS.. VIM. Brandt has been settled
Before the Court
The case of Henry j. Reuschlein
VS.. George Rutland is before the
court.
Cases to Follow
Cases to follow are:
SO, Rockford Poster Adv. Co., VS..
Charles C. Kidd.
55. r. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. vs..
George Pelton and others,
so. Louis Zantow vs. Ed Schir,
mer.
81. George Ring vs.. Guy L. Rey-
man.