SALES 11 Y IIOIISEDEALERS, AUCTIONEERS, ETC. J/ 



to take the borso. C. J. Best nousuited the plaiutill', 

 and the ruling of the Chief Justice was confirmed 

 by the Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Justice Pai-k 

 said, " I entii'cly concur in the opinion expressed 

 by Lord Mansfield that sales of this description 

 are fraudulent and void." This was followed in 

 Hoirard v. Castle {z), and again in Thornctt v. 

 Haines (a). 



Auctioneers, as a rule, have an interest in the Auction- 

 sales over which they preside, and consequently lieuonthc 

 have a hen on the articles sold. In llohinson v. for^their 

 Rutter {b) it was held that an auctioneer had a charges. 

 lien on a horse for his commission and charge. 

 If an auctioneer is instructed by the owner of a 

 horse to make fraudulent representations respect- 

 injr the animal, the owner cannot recover the 

 purchase money (c) . Where a horsedealer employed 

 an auctioneer to sell a horse for him, and make 

 certain representations which were fraudulent and 

 imtrue, and the fraud being discovered before the 

 horse was taken away, the auctioneer retui-ned the 

 money to the purchaser. The horsedealer there- 

 upon sued the auctioneer for the purchase money, 

 but it was held that he coidd not recover, the 



(-) G T. E. 634. 



{a) 13 L. J., Exch. 230; aud lo M. & W. 3G7. 



(i) 4 E. & B. 951; irilliaius v. Millbigton, 1 H. Bl. 81 ; Grlee 

 V. Kcndrick; L. R., ') Q. B. 340. 



(r) Murray v. Mauu, 2 Exch. 538 ; HUvciis v. Ltijh, 2 C. L. 

 E., Q. B. 201. 



