5-2;2 SALE BY THE HOBBETT. 



In Suffolk nearly all strain is sold by tlic cooniL of 4 bushels, and in 

 Cambridf^osliirc by the quarter of 8 bushels. These are but samples of 

 the universal confusion on the subject, the custom, however, of selling 

 all grain by weight is vastly on the increase, and will probably become 

 general, the standard weights per imperial bushel being, for wheat, G3lbs. ; 

 for barley, 56lbs. ; and for oats, 42lbs. 



Stat. 5 & 6 Will IV., c. 63, s. 6, ahoUshes all " local or cKstomary 

 measures, and imposes a penalty on every person who shall sell Iry any 

 denomination, or measure other than one of the imperial measures, or some 

 multiple or aliquot piart thereof." But it was held by the Court of Queen's 

 Bench in Hughes v. Humphrey that this applies only to sale by measure 

 of capacity, and not to sale by weight estimated in pounds ; and that, 

 therefore, it does not extend to sale by any local term designating a 

 given number of pounds weight. 



Hughes v. Humphreys was a case of sale hy the hohhrtt, wdiich is a 

 measure of the Llanrwst market, and contains four AVelsh pecks, each 

 of them 42lbs. in weight ; it therefore contains lG8lbs. ; while an ordi- 

 nary sack contains six Welsh pecks, or 2521bs. The sale was made 

 by sample, at Pthyl, in Flintshire, at so much per hobbett, and the 

 wheat was delivered in sacks of the ordinary kind. Williams J. directed 

 a verdict to be entered for the defendant on the third issue under 5 & 6 

 Will. lY., c. 63, and the Court of Queen's Bench ordered it to be 

 entered for the plaintiff. And per Lord CampMl C.J. : " If this was 

 really a sale by measure of capacity it would be contrary to the Act, 

 And the question therefore comes to be, "Was it a sale by measure or a 

 sale by weight in pounds ? Now, according to the evidence, when you 

 buy by hobbett you buy not dimensions but avoirdupois pounds, and 

 the contract is not fulfilled unless that weight is made ; it is therefore 

 a sale of so many times IGSlbs., which is a sale by weight, and no in- 

 fringement of the statute 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 63, or of any other act." 

 Erie J. observed : ** It is clearly a sale by the pound, the hobbett being 

 a given multiple of a pound." 



In Owens v. Denton a sale by the hobbett was held ihegal, it being 

 there assumed that the hobbett was a measure of capacity. And so 

 in Tyson v. Thomas it was held that an action could not le maintained 

 vpon a contract to sell hy the holbett, it appearing on the evidence that 

 a holbett consisted cf four pieclcs of 21 legal quarts each, and not, as in 

 Hughes v. Humphreys, a certain weight estimated in pounds. And p)er 

 Lord Kemjon, C.J., in Chenie v. Watson: "The contents of measures 

 can only he jyroved hy production in open Court." It was in evidence 

 there, that the round strike pressed the corn down, and left more in 

 the bushel than the flat strike. The provisions of 36 Geo. III., c. 88, 



