WARRANTY DISTINGUISHED FROM REPRESENTATION. 143 



broken ? For, if you do, you must find your verdict for 

 such sum as you think to be the real value of the picture ; 

 but if there was no express Warranty, but only a Repre- 

 senfation, then, as there is no evidence that the plaintiff 

 did not believe that the picture was not a Rembrandt, he 

 will be entitled to recover the full amount of the Bill," 

 which the Jury found (s). But in a case where Pictures 

 were sold with a Bill of parcels, containing the words 

 " Four Pictures, Yiews in Venice, Canaletti," the Jury 

 thought this a Warranty, and refusing a rule for a 

 new trial. Lord Denman, C. J., said, " It is for the Jury 

 to say, under all the circumstances, what was the effect 

 of the words, and whether they implied a Warrant!/ of 

 genuineness or conveyed only a Description or an ex- 

 pression of opinion, I think that their finding was right ; 

 Canaletti if) is not a very old painter" {ti). 



So, too, in the case of Percival v. Oldacre {x) the plain- Perdval v. 

 tiff saw a Horse at Bank's, in Gray's Inn Lane, belong- (^^'■^"'^>'^- 

 ing to the defendant, which was for sale. He afterwards 

 saw the defendant, told him that he had seen the Horse, 

 and asked him ' What about the Horse ? ' The defendant 

 said that he was a good harness Horse, and that he had 

 been bought to match for Baron Rothschild for 85/., and 

 that he was only selling him because he would not match. 

 The plaintiff on this went to Bank's, and bought the 

 Horse eventually for 65/. The Horse, on being put in 

 harness, turned out to be a kicker, and kicked the plain- 

 tiff's trap to pieces. He was afterwards sent to a stable, 

 and sold for 40/., and the action was brought for the dif- 

 ference. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 

 the 25/. claimed. In moving for a new trial it was con- 

 tended that there was no -evidence of Warranty, but Erie, 

 C. J., said that Mr. Justice Byles, who tried the cause, 

 was of opinion that there was evidence to go to the Jury 

 of a Warranty, and that the verdict therefore ought not to 

 be disturbed. 



In the case of Belin v. Burness (//) Mr. Justice Williams, Judgment in 

 in delivering the judgment of theExchequer Chamber, gave -^^^'" ^- •^"'■' 

 the following lucid exposition of the legal characteristics 



ness. 



(s) Be Schwanherg v. Buchanan, 5 (?<) Tower v. Barham, 4 A. & E. 



C. & P. 343. 473. 



it) Canaletti died in 17G8, and {x) Percival v. Oldacre, N. P. 0. 



Claude Loraine and Teniers (tlic P. Jan. 18, 1865. 



younger), mentioned in Jcudicine v. {ij) Behii v. Buriiess, 32 L. J., Q. 



Slade, died, the formex' in 1682, the B. 204, recognized and approved 



latter in 1694. by Erie, C. J., Mallan v. Madloff. 5 



N. R. 54. 



