LUCAS V. BLUNDELL. 
325 
defendant refused to pay, pleading that he had been induced to 
purchase the mare by the misrepresentations of a person named 
Farrall, to whom the mare belonged. 
Mr. Creswell said the question for the jury to try was, whe¬ 
ther Mr. Blundell was induced to make the purchase by fraud, 
or whether the sale was an honest one. It would appear that, 
on the 22d of August, Mr. Blundell went to Lucas’s reposi¬ 
tory, and bought a mare for £47..10s. At the plaintiff’s reposi¬ 
tory there was a rule, which had been a long time adopted—that 
all horses sold there with a warranty must be returned, if at all, 
by twelve o’clock the next day, with a certificate of a veterinary 
surgeon, stating the nature of the lameness of which complaint 
was made. It had been found necessary by the plaintiff to esta¬ 
blish that mode of doing business, as he sold horses by commis¬ 
sion, receiving a per centage for guaranteeing the money, which, 
the following day, at twelve o’clock, he paid over to the owners 
of the property sold. All persons knew that rule, for it was 
almost as well known as Lord-street in Liverpool. No man visit¬ 
ing the plaintiff’s premises could fail to see the rules, which were 
painted on a board in the yard, and their legality and validity for 
his protection had been decided in the court of Queen’s Bench, 
after solemn argument. Mr. Blundell, however, had not re¬ 
turned the mare within the limited period ; and he knew full 
well, for he had been there before, that he could not bring his 
action for breach of warranty;—in fact, he had the staff in his 
own hands, for he had not paid the money. He, therefore, 
returned the mare, with a veterinary surgeon’s certificate, and 
refused to pay, and to recover the amount Mr. Lucas was obliged 
to bring this present action. Mr. Blundell did not come within 
the limited time, with a surgeon’s certificate, and say the mare 
was unsound ; but he put an ingenious plea on the record, to 
the effect that Mr. Lucas was employed by one Robert Farrall 
to sell the mare; and that*Mr. Farrall by fraud had induced the 
defendant to buy her, whereon issued was joined. But it was 
an odd thing if Mr. Blundell bought a horse on what he had 
been told by Farrell: he (Mr. C.) should have supposed that 
he would have taken Lucas’s warranty rather than any thing 
that he had been told by Farrall; or have taken his own judg¬ 
ment. But no; he undertook to prove that he bought the 
mare on the strength of Farrall’s representations, and that 
Farrall was, in fact, a roguish horse-dealer. Now they (the 
Jury) should hear the circumstances, and be able to judge whe¬ 
ther Mr. Blundell relied on Farrall’s statement or Lucas’s war¬ 
ranty, aided by his own knowledge of horse flesh ; for Mr. 
Blundell was a sportsman, and was accustomed to rely a good 
von. XI. XX 
