78 
JURISPRUDENCE. 
as soundness, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Last 
week the Common Pleas Division ordered a new trial, the 
judges holding that the County Court judge had misconstrued the 
receipt, and that the allocation of the words showed the war¬ 
ranty to apply only to soundness. This construction of the doc¬ 
ument in question is in accordance witli decisions given on former 
occasions when the identical point was in dispute. In Dickinson 
vs. Gapp,’ tried in 1821, the warranty upon the breach of which 
the action was brought ran thus: ‘Deceived L100 for a bay 
gelding, got by Cheshire Cheese; warranted sound.’ The plain¬ 
tiff proved that the horse was not by Cheshire Cheese, but Chief 
Justice Dallas field that the warranty was confined to soundness, 
and nonsuited the plaintiff. In ‘ Budd vs. Fairmaner’ the receipt 
on the sale of a colt contained the following words: ‘For a 
gray 4 years old colt warranted sound in every respect.’ The 
colt turned out to be only three years old, but it was held that 
the soundness only was warranted, and the plaintiff was non¬ 
suited. These decisions show clearly how written documents of 
the above kind will be construed in courts of law, and it cannot 
be contended that any violence is done to the language in which 
they are expressed. If the words mean anything, they mean just 
what the courts held them to mean, and nothing else. It may be 
urged that the three plaintiffs in the above actions would not 
have bought if the horses had not been stated respectively to be 
quiet, by a particular sire, and of a certain age. 
The maxim, expressum jicit cessare taciturn , will explain why 
these statesments were disregarded. Whatever conditions the 
word ‘ warranted ’ did not apply to could not be reckoned as in¬ 
tegral parts of the contract of sale. In the above cases the 
sellers represented that the horses were quiet, of a certain breed, 
aud of a particular age, but they warranted they were sound. 
In order to hold a man liable if his representations turn out in¬ 
correct, it is necessary to show that he knew it was false at the 
time he made it. In selling horses it often happens that the 
owner has no personal knowledge of certain facts beyond what 
he was told when he bought; and if he sells on the same repre¬ 
sentation as he received, he is not liable, provided, of course, he 
