SIR FREDERICK FITZWYG RAM’s ANNUAL PRIZES. 
147 
afterwards Leeny saw that they were diseased, and complained to Love 
about it, making a claim upon him for compensation. The defendant 
employed his son to sell the sheep at Maidstone market on the 31st of 
December, 1878, and the day before the market he told his son that the 
sheep “ did not suit 55 Mr. Leeny and that he wanted to get rid of them, 
saying that they were a “ bad lot.” When asked whether he told his 
son they were diseased his answer was “ No ; I should not be such a fool 
as to tell him that!” and he admitted that he knew from Leeny that 
they had the rot. While the sheep were in Maidstone market a 
Government contractor saw them, and perceived and pointed out to the 
defendant’s son that they were diseased. However, they were sold there 
to flie plaintiff, as he alleged, on the representation that they were Mr. 
Leeny’s and sold by him because he had too many and that they were 
“ all right, ”—he giving 38s. apiece for them. They were sent to the 
plaintiff’s farm at Newington, near Sittingbourne, about nine miles from 
Maidstone, and on the very next day they began to die off from the 
disease, and ultimately all but seven died. The rest were sent to 
Rochester and sold at 8s. apiece as diseased; but being found to be 
bad, the plaintiff took them back at Is. a head and brought this action 
to recover from the defendant the loss he had sustained. At the first 
trial here, at the last Assizes, before Lord Justice Baggallay, the case 
was put as one of warranty. The plaintiff got a verdict for £40, but 
the verdict was set aside by two Judges in the Court of Exchequer, on 
the ground that the Judge had failed to direct the jury on the question 
of authority of the son to bind the father by a warranty in the absence 
of fraud or express authority to give a warranty. On the present trial 
the question arose whether it was a case of warranty or false represen¬ 
tation, and there was a good deal of discussion about it; the point 
arising, on the supposition that it was to be treated as a case of deceit 
or false representation, which equally divided the Court of Exchequer 
some years ago, when Baron Bramwell was a member of it—in a case of 
“Udall v. Atherton”—whether on a sale by an agent, who gives a false 
representation without express authority to do so, the principal is bound 
by it. After a good deal of discussion, the counsel for the plaintiff 
desiring to treat the case in the alternative as one of warranty or false 
representation, and contending that there was evidence of the defen¬ 
dant’s complicity in the alleged deceit (from the very fact of his abstain¬ 
ing carefully from telling his son the sheep were diseased), it appeared to 
be the opinion of the learned Judge that the case was to be treated 
rather as one of false representation than warranty; but that it would 
be better to take the evidence, and leave it to the jury in such a way as, 
if possible, to prevent any further litigation in the case. Accordingly, 
at the close of the evidence, the contention on the part of the defendant 
being that there had been neither warranty nor representation to the 
effect alleged, and he and his witnesses denying it altogether, 
The learned Judge left specific questions to the jury on all the 
material points, and they found for the plaintiff—Damages, £40. 
SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAM'S ANNUAL 
PRIZES. 
The examination is intended to take place in the week after the Easter 
examinations of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 1880. 
The competition is open only to members of the Royal College of 
