198 



PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES. 



Subsequent 

 Eecovery. 



Competency 

 of witnesses. 



for the purpose for whicli he was bought ; for iustance, 

 that he has answered his Warranty when used by persons 

 of ordinary skill (//). 



But where a Horse is proved to have had a Disease at 

 the time of Sale, his subsequent recovery is no defence to 

 an action on a Breach of Warranty, because where a 

 Horse is warranted it is to be presumed he is fit for im- 

 mediate use (z). 



There was formerly a diiference of opinion as to the 

 competency of a Witness, on the ground of interest. Thus 

 it was at one time held, that the former OA\Tier of a Horse, 

 which he had sold with a Warranty to the defendant, 

 was a competent Witness for him to prove that the Horse 

 when so sold was Sound {a) . And in a later case, Mr. 

 Justice Alderson considered such a Witness incompetent 

 on the ground that the effect of a verdict for the defendant 

 would be to relieve the witness from an action {h). 



Now, however, by the Acts of Yictoria (r) , no person is 

 to be excluded, and the plaintiff or defendant, or the hus- 

 band or wife of each or either, are competent witnesses. 



General 

 damages. 



Special 

 damages. 



Legal and 

 natural con- 

 sequences of 

 the breach 

 of Contract. 



DAMAGES. 



The Damages which iiccessari///, and by imj^lication of law, 

 ensue from the non-performance of the Contract, or the com- 

 mission of the Wrongful act, need not be expressly detailed, 

 and are recoverable under the connnon conclusion of the 

 Statement of Claim {d). 



But damages which really took place, but do not necessa- 

 rily arise from the non-performance of the Contract, or the 

 commission of the Wrongful act, and are not implied by law, 

 must be expressly stated in the Statement of Claim ; so 

 that the defendant may be prepared to dispute the facts. 



The Damages must be the legal and natural consequences 

 of the Breach of Contract, or of the Injury which has been 

 inflicted (c). Thus the costs of an action brought on a 



(y) Geddes v. Fetmington, 5 Dow, 

 164 ; see ante, p. 122, BHclcinghain 

 V. Reeve. 



{z) Coatcs V. Stephens, 2 M. & 

 Rob. 157. 



(«) Briggs v. Crick, 5 Esp. 99 ; 

 Baldwin v. Dixon, 1 M. & Rob. 69. 



{b) Bissy. Mountain, I M. & Rob. 

 302. 



(e) 6 k 7 Vict. c. 85 ; 14 & lo Vict. 

 0.99; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 83. 



{d) See Boorman v. Nash, 9 B. & 

 C. 1 52 : Bullen & Leake's Pleadings, 

 4th ed. 19. 



(e) See 1 Chit. Pleading, 6th ed. 

 395; also J'icarsY. Wilcocks, SEa.st, 

 3 ; Smith V. Gree7i, L. R., 1 C. P. D. 

 92 ; 45 L. J., C. P. 28 ; Randall v. 

 Xewson, L. R., 2 Q. B. D. 102 ; 

 46 L. J., Q. B. 259 ; 36 L. T., N. 

 S. 164; 25 W. R. 313— C. A. 



