320 THE ADVENT (JRES OF A GENTLEMAN 



ranting him, though the servant signed a receipt for 

 the price. 



It appears necessary that contradictory opinions 

 should exist, even on the simplest point, in horse- 

 dealing law. There is a case reported in the Times 

 journal, of the 22d of April, 1839, of which I do not 

 see any report in the law-books, in which these 

 authorities seem to have been overlooked, if we may 

 draw that inference from the grant of a rule nisi, 

 for I have been unable to find how it was eventually 

 decided. It is in the case of Tomlin v. Bowse : the 

 action was brought on the warranty of a horse, of 

 which one Laycock had the charge, at Brough fair. 

 The warranty was in the following terms: "Bought 

 of James Laycock a bay horse for X35, warranted 

 sound. James Laycock." Laycock w^as the servant 

 of the defendants, and the horse j)roving unsound, an 

 action was brought on this warranty : the plaintiff 

 recovered a verSict, and the defendant moved for a 

 new trial, on the ground that a servant who had not 

 a special authority given him by his master to war- 

 rant a horse, could not render his master liable by 

 giving a warranty. The point was reserved by Baron 

 Parke at the trial, and a rule nisi was granted. 



