SELLING SULPHURED HOPS. 529 



646, 17 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 190), all the law is examined and collected, 

 and the matter was much discussed. We are of opinion that a salesman 

 oflFering for sale a carcase with a defect of which he is not only ignorant, 

 but has not any means of knowledge (the defect being latent), is not 

 liable to any punishment, and does not, as a matter of law, completely 

 warrant that the carcase is fit for human food, and is not bound to 

 refund the price of it should it turn out not to be so " {Emberton v. 

 Matthews). 



Selling had meat. — A meat salesman can be indicted and convicted at 

 common laiv for hiowingly sending or exposing meat for sale in a public 

 market as fit for human food, which in fact was 7iot so, and the defendant 

 was imprisoned for six months : per Willes J. {Reg. v. Stevenson). 



Carrying had meat. — A carrier can be indicted and convicted at 

 common law for Icnoicinghj bringing to market meat unfit for human 

 food : j^er Gurney R. {Keg. v. Jarvis). 



Ahsence of intent to sell bad meat for food. — A person is not indictable 

 for sending to a meat salesman meat he knows to be unfit for human 

 food, if he does not intend (as appeared in this case, from the evidence 

 of a bone-boiler called by the defendant) that it is to be sold for human 

 food : per Willes J. {Reg. v. Crawley). 



Sending bad cider to customer. — A cider merchant at Cheltenham sold 

 to the defendant, a publican in London (to be delivered to him there), 

 a hogshead of cider warranted " good " and " prime." A hogshead 

 being delivered, it was tapped, and found unfit for use. The defendant 

 at once wrote to the plaintifi" that the little he had sold was complained 

 of, and that if it continued to be so he should have to return it. No 

 notice was taken of this letter for about a month, during which period 

 the defendant was trying to sell it, and found it unsaleable. He then 

 wrote to the plaintiff, proposing to return the hogshead, but the plaintiff 

 refused to assent to this, and sued the defendant for the price. The 

 defendant paid into court the value of the part he had used, and was 

 held not to be liable for the residue, and scmUe for none {Lucy v. 

 Mouflet). 



Selling sulphured hops. — The defendant, a hop merchant, entered into 

 a contract with the plaintiff", who was a hop grower, for the purchase of 

 hops by sample. Inasmuch as the defendant could not sell hops to his 

 customers if sulphur had been used in their growth, he inquired of the 

 plaintiff" at the time of making such contract if sulphur had been so 

 used, and the plaintiff" stated that it had not, and thereupon the contract 

 was made. The plaintiff knew of the objection by hop merchants to 

 sulphured hops, and the defendant would not have bought the hops if 

 he had been aware that sulphur had been used, as it was admitted it 



