MEMORANDA. 189 
was made to him on the subject until after he had settled 
accounts with the person who had sent in the glass for sale. 
It had been given out in the room at the time of the sale that 
the glass was not Smith and Beck’s, but he chiefly relied on 
the conditions of sale printed on the catalogue, one of which 
was to the effect that “the lots were to be taken away with 
all faults and errors of every description,’ and which, he con- 
tended, relieved him from all liability. 
Mr. Bland being recalled, said, in answer to his honour, 
that he had been present at the sale, and had himself, when 
the next lot (also described as by “Smith and Beck”) was 
put up, called out “the box is Smith and Beck’s, but the 
glass is not.” He had heard no such remark by any person 
with reference to lot 418. 
His Honour said that the condition of sale on which de- 
fendant relied, although it might have protected him as an 
accidental bona fide error, was clearly of no force in case of 
fraud ; in the present instance here was an article explicitly 
described in the catalogue as “an achromatic by Smith and 
Beck,” and put up in one of their genuine boxes, with their 
name and address engraved upon it, so as to deceive any 
ordinary person. He thought it would have been more satis- 
factory if some one from Smith and Beck’s had been in 
attendance; but looking at the fact that the plaintiffs witness 
had given evidence that he was acquainted with such matters, 
and that the article was not what it was deseribed to be, the 
plaintiff was entitled to recover. He would, however, if the 
defendant desired it, adjourn the hearing of the case at his 
expense, for the production of further evidence. 
The defendant declined to accede to this suggestion, and 
judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. 
