60 



lIOllSi: WAKUAM Y. 



vitintfs nil 

 coutracU. 



Fraud by 

 more thau 

 line is a 

 i-niisjii- 

 rucy. 



party to the contract has Locii iiidiicod to enter 

 into it by fraud, for fraud renders all contracts 

 void, both at law and in equity. The English 

 law does not attempt to define what fraud is, bo- 

 cause fraud is in itself so manysided that it is al- 

 most impossible to do so, nor does the French law 

 attempt a definition, although the civil code of 

 France purports to define almost everything. Still 

 it provides, Article lllG : "Fraud, ' le dol,' is a 

 ground for avoiding a contract when the tricks, 

 ' les maua3uvres,' practised by one of the parties 

 are such as to make it evident that without those 

 tricks the other party would not have contracted." 

 A horse, then, may be sold without any war- 

 ranty and the buyer retui-n it, if there has been 

 any fraud on the part of the seller in the transac- 

 tion. Nor will such fraud, if peqietrated by only 

 one person, be a criminal oflencc. In such case 

 the fraud is a mere imposition, and the buyer 

 must look out for himself, 11. v. Whcntlr >/{>'). But 

 where two or more persons combine together to 

 cheat in the sale of a horse, it is a criminal of- 

 fence, and renders such persons liable to be in- 

 dicted for a conspiracy, IL v. Slicppard {a). But 

 it must be shown that all the parties charged knew 

 of the fraud. /.'. ^•. J'l/ucU {t), also Ji. v. licad{u). 

 »So also it is u criminal offence for two or moro 

 persons to obtain money for a horse upon state- 



(»•) 2 Bumll, I'js. 

 (») DC. k V. 121. 



(0 1 Starkir, N. V. C. 102. 

 («) 6 Cox, C. C. 135. 



