272 



money from the seller : and it is also held, that the 

 right to repudiate the contract is not afterwards 

 revived by the discovery of another incident in the 

 same fraud." 



I understand this case to decide, that if a pur- 

 chaser adopts the article purchased as his own, 

 after he has discovered fraud, he cannot repudiate 

 the contract: and therefore, that if on the dis- 

 covery that he has been fraudulently imposed 

 upon as to the age of a horse, he still retains him 

 as his own property, he cannot afterwards avoid 

 the contract for fraud, though he should subse- 

 quently discover that he has been similarly deceived 

 as to his sight. I cannot acquiesce in the reason- 

 ableness of this doctrine, if I rightly understand it. 

 Mr. Justice Park does not appear to have adverted 

 to this point in delivering his opinion. 



It is scarcely necessary to observe that except 

 under circumstances of premeditated deceit, ca- 

 pable of clear proof, the sale of an unsound for a 

 sound horse is not an offence cognizable by our 

 criminal courts. This is established by Lord 

 Mansfield in the case of the King i\ Wheatley, 2 

 Burr. 1125: "The selling an unsound horse as 

 and for a sound one, is not indictable : the buyer 

 should be more upon his guard." My reader must 

 bear this in mind when I speak of deceit and 



