COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER.|1866-05-11|The Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser - Welsh Newspapers Online
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER.

News
Cite
Share

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER. [Saturday, May 6th, before Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, J. J.] CHAPMAN V. GWYTHBR. This action was tried at the Guitdhat) sittings, London, in December last. The plaintiff, a horse dealer at Chel- tenham, sought to recover from the defendant, a farmer, residing at Trewent, near Pembroke, damages for breach of a warranty on the sale of a horse. The sale took place at Trewent, on the 5th of June, 1865. The price of the horse was £90, and the sale note given hy the defendant to the plaintiff contained the words 4 Warranted sound for one month.' The plaintiff alleged that the warranty was broken by reason of the unsoundness of the horse, and produced witnesses who proved that on the 8th July following the sale, the horse was lame, and suffering from •navicular' disease The jury found that the horse was unsound at the time of sale, though not to the knowledge of the defendant, and returned a verdict for the plain- tiff for £82, subject, however, to a point reserved hy the learned judge (Mr Justice Blackburn) who presided at the trial, for the opinion of the Court, as to the true con- struction to be put upon tbe warranty. Mr Giffard, Q.C in last term, obtained a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered, on the ground that the true meaning of the warranty was, that any unsoundness in the horse was to be discovered and complained of within a month. It was also made a part of the rule that counsel for plaintiff should be at liberty to move for a new trial, on the ground that the warranty ran from the 12th of June only-the day of the actual delivery of the horse to the plaintiff- and not from the 5th of June, the day of the sale. Mr H. Matthews, and Mr Moir, now appeared to show cause. They stated that in June last Mr Benjamin Chapman, the father of the plaintiff, went with a friend to the house of the defendant, at Trewent, and there bought for the plaintff the horse in question for £90. A warranty was drawn up by the friend, to which there was no demur, and ultimately it was arranged that the warranty should be for one month only, and the words 'Warranted sound for one month' were written by the defendant. On the 8th of June the plaintiff sent to the defendant a cheque for the money, upon which wa" en- 1 doried another wrrranty, containing the words 'War- I ranted sound for one month from the delivery,' and on ( the 12th the horse was in fact, delivered to the plaintiff. On the 8th of the following month of July—which was after the expiration of a month from the date of the first warranty, lvui within a month from the actual delivery— Ihe horse was found to be lame. The learned counsel contended that the words • Warranted sound tor a month* meant that the horse was sound when the warranty was eiven, and would continue sound for a month, and that consequently the defendant was liable, because the jury had found that the horse was unsound at the time of sale. On the other point, the plaintiff's counsel contended that the warranty written on the cheque, which was to run from the actual delivery, was the warranty which the plaintiff accepted, his father not being authorised to ac. cept any other, and was therefore the one by which the defendant was bound. Mr Ben T. William*, for the defendant, argued that the interpretation of the warranty contended for by the J plaintiff's counsel, extended, rather than limited, the iial,ilityof the defendant. An ordinary warranty with* out any limitation as to tfine would he good only a8 against any unsoundness or seeds of unsoundness exist- ing at the time 01 sale, but if the plaintiff's contention* were correct, the defendant's liability would extend not only to disease or unsoundness in existence at the time of sale, but also to any which might be originated witbitt j f\ month utter the sate—a supposition which was raa"i* I festly unreasonable. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that his intention in giving a warranty for a month was to restrict his liability to unsoundness existing at the time of the sale, and which should be discovered and notified to him within a month from that time, arid that inasmuch as no notice of unsoundness was given to him, nor any unsoundness discovered within the month, his liability on the warranty was at an end-Bywaler II. Richardson, 1 A. & E. Liddiard v Kain, 3 Bmg. Oli- phant, on horses. He then, on tbe other point, read several letters which had passed between the parties, from which it appeared that the defendant had through- out relied upon the warranty of the 5th of June, and wholly repudiated the warranty written on the cheque, and contended that the warranty of the 5th of June, and not the subsequent one, was the basis of the contract. Blackburn, J said his learned brothers agreed with him in his opinion that the binding contract between the parties was the warranty of the 5th of June. There would, therefore, be no new trial on that point. With reference to the other question, they were of opinion that the defendant in giving the warranty of the 5th of June intended to limit his liability to any unsoundness exist- ing at the time of sale, and which should bo discovered and complained of to him within a month afterwards. Such contracts were nor. unusual or improper. The learned Judge then referred to the authorities cited ill the argument, and concluded by saying the rule lor nonsuit would be made absolute. Mellor, J., and Lush, J., concurred. Rule absolute for a nonsuit accordingly. Attorney for plaintiff, Mr Marshall, of Cheltenham. Attorney for defendant, Mr William John, of Haver- fordwest.

ROOSE PETTY SESSIONS.

T E N B Y.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY.

TUESDAY. CHURCH RATES.

DREADFUL FIRE AT SWANSEA.

A MEDIAEVAL HYMN.

[No title]

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

SUMMARY.

THE CABINET MAKERS, HOUSE…

[No title]

BRISTOL BANKRUPTCY COURT.