300 
WARRANTY OF LAMBS. 
cumstances that occurred at Killingham. The lambs arrived 
there very late on the evening preceding the fair. Every pad- 
dock and every yard was full, and the only place to which they 
could be taken for the night was a low common, a little w 7 ay from 
Killingham, and which had the repute of being rotting ground. 
—The seller could not deny that the lambs were driven there; 
but he would not admit that they were rotted there, and main¬ 
tained that it might have occurred on some part of the journey 
from the fair on the following day, or probably on the farm of 
the purchaser. He proved that the lambs were sound at the 
time of sale.— Edit. 
A few days afterwards appeared the following curious success¬ 
ful application for a new trial. 
Everett v. Youell. 
This was an action on a warranty of lambs sold to the plain¬ 
tiff. It was tried at the Assizes at Thetford, before Mr. Baron 
Vaughan, when a verdict was returned for the defendant. 
Mr. Sergeant Storks moved for a rule, to shew cause why the 
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the 
grounds,—first, that the verdict was contrary to evidence ; 
secondly, that the Judge misdirected the Jury; and thirdly, that 
refreshments were supplied to one of the Jury while they were 
considering their verdict This case was attended with pecu¬ 
liar circumstances. The trial commenced at five o’clock on 
a Friday evening, and continued until nine, when it was ad¬ 
journed until eight o’clock next morning : it lasted from eight 
till nine next day; and the Jury did not return their verdict until 
eleven o’clock on Sunday morning. The warranty was, that all 
the lambs were from one flock, and had belonged to one farmer; 
yet the contrary was established by the evidence. Refreshments 
were supplied to the foreman of the Jury while they were deli¬ 
berating, which enabled him to hold out against the others ; 
and before the Jury had decided on their verdict, the learned 
Judge came into court and told them, that, as they differed, the 
minority should yield to the majority. Now, he submitted, that 
the Judge was by no means justified in making such observa¬ 
tions to the Jury,—he ought to have left the subject to themselves: 
by adopting that course he clearly transgressed his duty. 
Lord Tenterden.—The fact of refreshments having been sup¬ 
plied to one of the Jury is not sufficient; you must carry it fur¬ 
ther, and shew how it affected the verdict. It does not appear 
that the juryman who got the refreshments had been in favour 
of the defendant; nor does it appear by whom the refreshments 
were supplied. You may punish the officer who attended the 
Jury for a neglect of duty. You may take your rule on the other 
two points, but not on the ground of refreshments.—Rule 
granted. 
