234 



names of the buyer and seller, are stated upon 

 paper, this will amount to a memorandum within 

 the statute ; it is not necessary that the bargain 

 should be detailed in all its minor and concomitant 

 circumstances, nor that the signature should be 

 formally attached to any particular part of the 

 memorandum ; nor even that it should be written, 

 instead of printed on the bill of parcels, if there is 

 any evidence to show a recognition of the printed 

 form. The leading cases upon which I rely, upon 

 these points, are, Egerton v. Matthews, 6 East, 

 307 ; Champion v. Plummer, 1 Bosanquet and 

 Puller, 254; Schnieder v. Norris, 2 Maule and 

 Selwyn, 286; and Elmore v, Kingscote, 8 D. and R., 

 343. I do not extract these cases, because, ex- 

 cepting the last, they have no immediate reference 

 to the subject of horse-dealing: the memorandum 

 must be signed, either by the parties, or by their 

 agents lawfully authorized ; an auctioneer is a 

 lawfully authorized agent of both parties, but the 

 memorandum which he makes of the sale must be 

 a sufficient memorandum, answering the description 

 which I have already given. It is not necessary 

 that the agent should possess an authority in writ- 

 ing ; it is quite sufficient if his authority to act is 

 sustained by the circumstances in which he is 

 placed, or the verbal instructions given to him by 



