259 



the defendant could have no certam knowledge, 

 he must be understood as speaking to his belief 

 only. 



My readers may also refer to the cases of Budd 

 V. Fairmaner, hereafter quoted, and Dunlop v. 

 Waugh, Peake's Rep. 167. The last case is as 

 follows : 



" If a man, not knowing the age of a horse, but 

 having a written pedigree which he received with 

 him, sell him as a horse of the age stated in the 

 pedigree, at the same time stating he knows nothing 

 of him but what he has learned from the pedigree, 

 he is not liable to an action when it appears that 

 the pedigree is false." 



It should be observed that the mark was out of 

 the mouth, and the horse proved to be fourteen. 



Lord Kenyon was " clearly of opinion that this 

 was no warranty : the defendant related all he 

 knew of the horse, and did not enter into any 

 express undertaking that the horse was of the age 

 stated in the pedigree, but stated the contents of 

 that pedigree, which the plaintiff relied on." 



These cases contain all the law on the subject of 

 fraudulent misrepresentation; but it is necessary, 

 however, for the purchaser to be careful that, if he 

 makes any contract for the purchase of the horse 

 which is reduced to writing, after the negotiation for 

 s2 



