376 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



allude to the importance of not being misled by any- 

 casual remarks of the auctioneer, or verbal assu- 

 rances at variance with the printed conditions of 

 sale. The case of Gunnis v. Erhart, 1 H. Bl. 289, 

 is an authority on this point, though the property 

 sold had no connection with horse-flesh — it 'vV'as a 

 copyhold estate. 



The principle upon which auctions must be con- 

 ducted, has very little to do with the subject of 

 horse warranties ; yet, as they constitute the principal 

 market for horses, I shall refer to one or two cases upon 

 the right of the seller to act as the puffer of goods. 



In Howard v. Castle, 6 T. R. 642, it was held, 

 "that if the owner of goods or an estate put up to sale 

 at an auction, employs puffers to bid for him without 

 declaring it, it is a fraud on the real bidders, and the 

 highest bidder cannot be compelled to complete the 

 contract." 



This doctrine, however, is again questioned, in the 

 case of Conolly v. Parsons, 3 Ves. 625, where a dis- 

 tinction seems to be intended, that it is no fraud, 

 unless there happens to be but one real bidder. 



Both these cases were quoted in that of Crowdei 

 V. Austin, 2 Carr. and P. 208. 



