Evening Republican, Volume 16, Number 236, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 October 1912 — SMALL JUDGMENT AGAINST HANSSON [ARTICLE]

SMALL JUDGMENT AGAINST HANSSON

Dr. S. H. Moore Given $65 in Suit Brought Against Local Agent for Overland Autos. The jury in the Moore-Hansson case gave the former a judgment for • $65 against the latter, which will throw the costs of the trial, about $75, on Hansson. ’the case was the outgrowth of the sale to Dr. S. H. Moore by Dr. J. Hansson, of an Overland automobile. The purchaser is upwards of 80 years of age and not physically able to handle an automobile and he entrusted it much of the time' to boys. Occasionally he drove it himself but he usually wound up by running into a ditch or straddling a telephone pole or a tree. This is said without a bit of disrespect to Dr. Moore. He drove more carefully than a large number of much younger men but his eyes were not the best and his nerves a little unsteady. He had possessed the car for several months when he decided he had been buncoed and he filed an action against Dr, Hansson, the local agent, a veterinary. There is considerable difference between the medical and veterinary practice, we understand, and there was considerable difference in their estimate of the value of the automobile The M. D. paid $845 for it. His complaint charged that he had been skinned to the amount of S6OO. He alleged that the car he received was not entirely new and- not what he had. been promised. He also charged that Hansson had told him that he was selling him the car at cost. . He did not prove that the car was not what it was guaranteed. It was not shown that the car was not just as represented, but he did make a tolerably good showing that it was represented to him that he was to receive the dar at virtually cost, ■

It was shown that the list price of the car was SI,OOO and that he bought it for $845, but it was shown that Dr. Hansson paid only $682 for it or $163 less than he sold it for. The local agent had also paid an additional $25 as a bonus to another man to get the car here a little earlier. The jury considered that the representations about selling the car for near cost did not justify the profit made by the agent and hence the verdict