PAROL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE TO EXPLAIN TRADE TERMS. 481 



is inadmissible to explain that on a contract to sell wool " to be paid for 

 by cash in one month, less 5 per cent, disconnt," the vendor has a lien on 

 it for payment by usage of the trade {Sparkdiy. BcnecliC,Godis v. Rose). 



Parol evidence is, however, admissible to explain trade terms. And 

 pr Parlce B., in Hidchinson v. BoivTcer, where parol evidence was ad- 

 mitted for the pui'pose of showing that there were hvo descriptions of 

 harleij in the same mar/ret, ono "fine" (which was the heavier of the 

 two) and one " good." " The law I take to be this : that it is tlie duty 

 of the Court to construe all written instruments : if there are peculiar 

 expressions used in it which have in particular places or trades a known 

 meaning attached to them, it is for the jury to say what the meaning 

 of these expressions was, but for the Court to decide what the meaning 

 of the contract was. It was right, therefore, to leave it to the jury to 

 say whether there was a peculiar meaning attached to the word ' fine ' 

 in the corn-market ; and the jury having found wdiat it was, the 

 question whether there was a complete acceptance by the written 

 documents is a question for the judge." And an agreement to sell oats 

 at so much per lushel must be taken to mean the legal standard bushel, 

 and will not be supported by evidence to sell by some other bushel 

 {HocMn V. Cooke). 



In Studdy v. Satmders parol evidence was admitted to show that 

 cider in Devonshire (which diminishes in quantity in the course of 

 manufacture at the average of six or eight gallons per hogshead) means 

 apple-juice as soon as it is squeezed from the apples, without undergoing 

 further preparation. And so again, in Spicer v. Cooper, to explain the 

 rvording of a hop-contract, where one of the items in the written con- 

 tract signed by the defendant, was to the eflPect that the defendant 

 had sold the plaintiff "18 pockets of Kent hops at lOOs." The de- 

 claration stated that he had sold the pockets at £5 per cwt., but failed 

 to deliver them according to promise, and Non assumpsit was pleaded. 

 It appeared that a pocket of hops contained more than one cwt., and 

 that the defendant had proposed to deliver the hops at lOO.s. for such 

 pocket ; but it was held that the plaintiff was justified in showing 

 by parol evidence, that by the usage of the hop trade a contract so 

 worded was understood to mean £5 per cwt. Plaintiff had a verdict, 

 and a rule for a nonsuit was refused. Lord Demnan C. J. said, " In 

 this case the contract was either simply 'at i 00s.,' in which case evi- 

 dence was admissible. to explain in what sense such words are used in 

 the trade, or it is a perfect contract at ' 100s. per pocket,' in which 

 case evidence is admissible as to the sense in which the trade understand 

 the word ' pocket ' so used. Therefore in either view of the case there 

 should be 'no rule.'" 



