The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-02-24 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WIDNILSDAY, FEB. 23.

[Siftingt in London, before the Cater JUSTICE and Common
Jw-tes.
ntrateow r. troeL.
Th's was an ection to recover damages upon a breach of warranty,
on the sale of a certain quantity of seed by the defeat:Lint to tin
plaintiff.
The facts of the case appeared by the evidence to be these:—
The plaintiff, Mr. Dickson. who is a respectable farmer,living in
the neighbourhood of Blackheath, sent his servant with a printed
ticket to the defendant, who is a rem and sebd merchant, and who
keeps a stall in the corn-market, at Mark-lane, for a quantity of
spring tares, amounting to 71. lffs. The defendant's brother showed
him 20 quarters of tares, some of which were spring and some winter
tare', and told him to take his choice. The man took part of the
winter, later but without being aware of the mistake. The brother of
the defendant then gave him a sale ticket as for spring tarn,. A few
days after, Mr. Dickson saw the defendant, and told him that
there was some doubt whether his man had brought the right
seed, and wished to know whether it was so or not; the acre'''.
dant said he did not know. but would ascertain. On the following
day he learned that part of the seed was winter instead of spring
seed, and he immediately wrote to the plaintiff to acquaint him
with the mistake, and offered to exchahge them; but the p!iiirtiff
had already sown the seed. The consequence was, that in the
month of November the tares from the winter seed had grown hut
a few inches and then rotted at the roots; whereas the spring
reel had sprung up several inches and was most healthy.
Mr. GI; ewer contended, that the defendant had violated his
contract, which was clearly proved by the production of the market
ticket, signed and delivered by his brother to the plaintiff's servant,
and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to the damages he bad
sustained in consequence of the failure of his crop.
He then callect the plaintiff's bailiff, who said that he considered
that if the tares had been spring tares the crop would bare been
worth 81. an acre. _

It was contended by Mr. Scani.erv, on the pan of the defen.
dent, that the plaintiff was informed of the mistake in sufficient
time to have had it corrected, but that the plaintiffdeclined having
it done, because he wished to make an experiment to ascertain
wt *ter winter seed, being town so early, would suceezd to a good
crop. The Learned Gentleman alto called witnesses to prove that
the plaintiff had, in a conversation, consented to we're his right of
action against rite defendant. saying, that he was only trying an
experiment ; that he 'had already had a gond crop of potatoes off the
land, and that he should not take advantnge of him (defendant).
The Loan Cuer Juirr ICE said, that the market ticket, and
the letter of the defendant to the plaintiff, clearly showed that a
mama bad been made for the sale of spring tares, andltnit a
breath of that contract had also been committed by tie delivery of
winter tares instead. The only questions then for the Jury to con-
sider sere—first, whether the plainntr had sutsegoently consented
to dispense whit the contract, and if so, what were the damages he
had sustained ? lie thought the evidence to prove the conversations
between the plaintiff* and defendant was not very satisfactery ;
therefore if, es in his judgment they must, the Jury gave their ver-
dict for the plaintiff, they had only then to ascertain the amount of
damages. In making thc.r (adulate, they would consider
the difference of value between a full crop and the partial crop
obtained by the plaintiff, and add to it the sum paid by him for
the winter seed, which he, of course was entitled to.
The Jury consulted a short time, and returned a verdict for the
the plaintiff.—Daniages 20/.