530 ADULTERATED SEED. 



liad been in 5 acres out of 300, and the sulphured hops mixed with the 

 unsulplmred afterwards. It was held by the Court of Common Pleas 

 that the contract was conditional on sulphur not having been used in 

 the growth of the hops ; and that if sulphur had been so used, the 

 defendant was at liberty to reject the hops, although they corresponded 

 with the sample by which they had been sold. And per Byles J. : 

 •' The case of Nichol v. Godts (10 Ex. 191, and 23 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 314) 

 comes very near to the present one. Although that was the sale of an 

 ascertained article, foreign refined rape-oil, which corresponded with 

 the sample, the Court held that the vendee might return it on its not 

 answering to the description by which it was sold " {Bamierman v. 

 Wiite). 



SelUiig refuse calce. — It was held by Polloch C.B., in Jaclcson v. Har- 

 rison, that seed-crushers who sold the refuse cake when the oil had been 

 expressed from the linseed to farmers for oilcake, but without any de- 

 scription as cattle food, or any express or actual warranty as such, and 

 Avithout, so far as appeared, anythiug being said as to its use, or any in- 

 timation that it was bought for that purpose, are not liable on an implied 

 warranty that it was good for cattle food, when the cows died (from its 

 mechanical, and not chemical action) after eating it. 



Adiilterafed seed. — In Dm.uj v. GiUctt, which was tried in the Common 

 rieas at Westminster, tlie verdict turned on the amount of burnet seed 

 among the h\ qrs. of sainfoin sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, 

 without a sample or a warranty. 



It was allowed by the skilled witnesses on both sides that you would 

 expect to meet with burnet in every sainfoin sample ; but according 

 to the testimony of the witnesses, and Prof. Buckmann especially, who 

 thought it was a crop of burnet, the per-centage in the seed purchased 

 by the plaintiff was very great. The seed was duly drilled in with 

 barley in the February of 1858, and fed with sheep that autumn, mown 

 in 1859, fed again in 1860, and then ploughed up as being perfectly 

 useless, instead of running out its five or six years ; and at the end 

 of that time the plaintifl" applied to the defendant for compensation, 

 and wished for an arbitration by a mutual friend, who fixed the claim 

 for compensation at a most moderate figure. The defendant declined all 

 such overtures, and principally relied on the claim being a stale one, in 

 consequence of the lapse of time, and on the fact that the plaintiff, 

 instead of merely running his lambs over the sainfoin after the barley was 

 cut, had folded sheep on it, who had eaten the very heart out of it, and 

 laid the foundation for lob and other weeds among the plants next spring. 



The general tenor of liis evidence went to show that no sainfoin sam- 

 ples were now free from a very great admixture of burnet. and that 



