251 



observance of honesty and good faith." " The 

 terms to which the plaintiff acceded, of taking the 

 ship with all faults, and without warranty, must 

 be understood to relate only to those faults which 

 the plaintiff could have discovered, or which the 

 defendants were not acquainted with." 



But in Baglehole v. Walters, 3 Camp. 154, 

 Lord Ellenborough held that " if a ship be sold 

 with all faults, the seller is not liable to an action 

 in respect of latent defects which he knew of 

 without disclosing at the time of sale, unless he 

 used some artifice to conceal them from the pur- 

 chaser;" and this case is recognized in Pickering 

 V. Dowson, 4 Taunt. 779 ; also in Dawes v. King, 

 1 Starkie, 75, it is further held, that the deceit of 

 the defendant must be used for the purpose of 

 throwing the plaintiff off his guard. 



In Scheider v. Heath, 3 Camp. 506, Sir J. 

 Mansfield held that " the vendor could not avail 

 himself of a similar stipulation if he knew of secret 

 defects in her, and used means to prevent the pur- 

 chaser from discovering them, or made a fraudulent 

 representation of her condition at the time of sale." 



In Parkinson v. Lee, 2 East, 314, which was an 

 action respecting the sale of hops by sample, Mr. 

 Justice Grose observed, " If an express warranty 

 be given, the seller will be liable for any latent 



