262 



paid twelve guineas into court, as it would seem 

 for the six weeks' hire, according to the written 

 contract. The case, like most law cases, is so 

 briefly reported, that the facts are left in some ob- 

 scurity ; but they are sufficiently explained to get 

 at the point of the decision. The defendant con- 

 tended that it was a general hiring, under which 

 all liabilities of accident would fall upon the owner 

 of the horse : and that the contract contained in 

 the pencil memorandum proved only a general 

 hiring, and it was not competent to the plaintiff to 

 graft upon it any special condition. Lord Ellen- 

 borough however held that " the written agreement 

 merely regulates the time of hiring and the rate ol 

 payment, and I shall not allow any evidence to be 

 given by the plaintiff in contradiction of these 

 terms ; but I am of opinion that it is competent to 

 the plaintiff to give in evidence suppletory matter 

 in part of the agreement." 



But where the agreement is not ambiguous in 

 the terms of it, but expressed in clear and explicit 

 words, it cannot be explained by parole evidence. 

 Vide Clifton v. Walmesley, 5 T. R. 567. Or to 

 speak more correctly, such an agreement being 

 clear, requires no explanation ; and parole evidence 

 would tend to create that ambiguity which it was 

 the very object of the statute of frauds to prevent, 



