IN SEARCH OF A HORSE. 293 



are left in some obscurity; but they are sufficiently 

 explained to get at the point of the decision. The 

 defendant contended that it was a general hiring, 

 under which all liabilities of accident would fall upon 

 the owner of the horse : and that the contract con- 

 tained in the pencil memorandum proved only a 

 general hiring, and it was not competent to the 

 plaintiff to graft upon it any special condition. 

 Lord Ellenborough, however, held that '* the written 

 agreement merely regulates the time of hiring and 

 the rate of payment, and I shall not allow any evi- 

 dence to be given by the plaintiff in contradiction of 

 these terms ; but I am of opinion that it is compe- 

 tent to the plaintiff to give in evidence suppletory 

 matter in part of the agreement." 



But where the agreement is not ambiguous in the 

 terms of it, but expressed in clear and explicit words, 

 it cannot be explained by parole evidence. Vide 

 Clifton V. Walmesley, 5 T. R. 567. Or to speak 

 more correctly, such an agreement being clear, re- 

 quires no explanation ; and parole evidence would 

 tend to create that ambiguity which it was the very 

 object of the statute of frauds to prevent, in requir- 

 ing, that contracts should be reduced to writing, to 



