38 CONCEALMENT INTOXICATION. 



the error, to correct a misaioprehension innocently caused ;(«) 

 or by keeping silence as to facts which, if disclosed, would 

 alter the Avhole effect of what has been stated. (6) And even 

 when a horse is sold, " with all faults," the seller is not pro- 

 tected against faults he has been at pains to disguise, (c) 



33. Underhand Dealing. — Where there is such a course 

 of underhand dealing, not precisely coming under misrepre- 

 sentation or concealment, as above explained, it will depend 

 very much on the facts of each particular case, on the rela- 

 tive situation of the parties, and on their means of informa- 

 tion, whether it is, or is not, fraudulent. (cZ) 



34. Intoxication. — Where a bargain has been entered into 

 by a party in a state of intoxication, he may have redress ;(e) 

 but the intoxication must amount to total incapacity of giv- 

 ing serious consent, and not mere facility from drink ;(/) 

 and the issue generally framed leaves it to the jury to find 

 whether the party pleading intoxication Avas so much 

 intoxicated as to be " wholly incapable of understanding " 

 what he was doing, (g) 



Thus, in a case Avhere a suspension of a charge upon a bill 

 for the price of a horse, was brought on the ground that the 

 suspender Avas intoxicated, it came out that, at the time of 

 signing the bill, the purchaser not only Avas able to entertain 

 his guests, but pressed them to take Avine Avith him ; and, 

 moreover, had recollections, the morning after, of having 

 signed the bill, and it Avas held that he AA'as not in such a 



(a) Ilcyncll v. Sprye, 1852, 1 De G. M. and G. 660. 



(h) Peek V. Gurney, 1S73, L.E, 6 H.L. 377. 



(c) § 9. 



(rf) B. Pr. 14 ; Addison on Contracts, 116, see Henry v. Wyper, 1857, 20 D. 56. 

 Circumstances in which a party, who alleged that he was mei-ely a bystander, wns 

 held to be the principal in the sale of a horse, on a warranty, and liable on its 

 proving unsound. 



(e) Stair, i. 10, 13; Ersk. iii. 1, 16; Duncan v. Martin, 1839, M'F. 278; 

 Jardinc v. Elliot, 1803, Hume, 684 ; Hunter v. Stevenson, 1804, Hume, 686. 



(/) TaTjlor V. Provan, 1864, 2 M. 1226. 



(-7) Johnston v. Clarlc, 1854, 17 D. 228. 



