284 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



safely rely upon a remedy on a warranty in the na- 

 ture of a representation, even where it proves to be 

 a misrepresentation of facts ; unless they have it in 

 their power to show that it was made with a know- 

 ledge of its falsehood, and consequently falls under 

 the legal definition of fraud: and on this -point the 

 authorities are innumerable. 



In the case of Chandelor v. Lopus, already men- 

 tioned, it was decided, that the action of trespass on 

 the case for selling a jewel, affirming it to be a 

 bezar-stone, will not lie where in fact it is not a 

 bezar-stone ; unless it be alleged that the defendant 

 knew it was not a bezar-stone, or that he warranted 

 it was a bezar. 



Another case, to the like eifect, is that of Roswuel 

 V. Vaughan, in Croke, James, 196. 



The case of Pasley v. Freeman, is the leading case 

 upon this subject ; and of the more value, because 

 Mr. Justice Grose differed from his brethren in 

 opinion. It is to be found in 3 Term Reports, 51 ; 

 and it will be observed, that it goes so far as to 

 make a third party liable for fraudulent deceit, even 

 though he derives no benefit, and even though there is 

 no collusion between that third party and the vendor. 



