The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-15 00:00:00

LAW INT:

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special
Jury.)
WALKER V. MILNER AND OTHERS.

The hearing of this cause, the opening of which appeared
at length yesterday in The Sun, was resumed this morning
by the examination of witnesses on the part of the Messrs.
Milner.
Mr. Hopley, the manager of the establishment of Messrs.
Milner in lloorgate-street, aes called, and submitted to a
long and minute examination to prove that it was not in
his power to wai:ant the safes. He slated positively that
when the Messrs. Walker came to their house to purchase
the safe he never gave them a ivarrantry that the article he
was Balling was burglary proof. It was not the practice of
the house to do so ; in fact, he was stl:ctly prhibi.ed from
stating so. He would nuclei take to swear that when
the invoice was rant to Messrs. Walker they had not a
circular in use with a different sketch on it.
Mr. Seymour (couuLel for Messrs. Walker —When you
sold the safe to Mr. Walke- did you believe the property
placed in it would be pei:ectly safe ?
Witness—l did. I never heard of any of our safes being
broken open up to that time. I never ir se-ed the safety of
property placed in any of our safes.
The lea-and counsel here read an extract from one of
the circulars issued by the fi- .11 of Milner and Co., stating
that by property being placed ;a their strong holdfust safes
perfect safety would be -inst,-ed from fire and thieves.
The Lord Chief Just' i did not think that the term
"insuracl " in the prospectus bore the meaning the learned
counsel for the Messrs. Walker was putting upon it.
The circulars issued by the Elea prexious to the burglary
represented that " pai:ect safety was hist' -ed" by the use
of the safes, but in those issued afterwards it was only
stated to be " s; :•tingly secured."
The Lord Cl•ief Justice thought that was ra3ing tee
much; after the fact that ono of the" tees I, -d been
opened under the circumstances so we" known.
Witness, iu answer to further ques.ions, said Mr.
Walker told him he was going to place watcaes and
jewellery in the safe, but he never said anything about
its being left all night on the premises without any 13r-
son being there. He could not swear he did not go to
Mr. Walker's premises and see the safe fixed after it
was purchased, but he believed not. He recollected
Mr. Berdoe, an outfitter, in Cornbill, bought a
safe some years ago. He never said to him it was
burglar proof. He never told him that it would hold out
from Saturday to Monday, with perfect safety, against any
burglarious attempt. He was quite certain of that. He
was paid a salary by Messrs. Milner, and also a commission
of per cent. He received that commission on the safe
sold to Mr. Walker.
Mr. Seymour—l perceive in one of your circulars safe.;
of this description, " lighter and cheaper than thief-proof
holdfasts," what is meant by the last three words ?
Witness—l suppose it refers to No. 3in the list.
A Juror—What do you say when you are asked by a cus-
tomer what you mean by the term strong holdfast-safe.
Witness—l tell them they are very strong safes. List
No. 2 is called " fire resisting," and list No. 3, " strong
holdfasts."

A juror—What appears on the small plate in the centre
of the safe now in emit ?
The paint was removed from the plate and the inscrip-
tion was lead. It contained the words " strong holdfast,
gunpowder proof, and picklock proof safes."
The evidence of the defendent, Mr. Milner, taken by
commission, was then read. It stated most distinctly that
Mr. Hopley, their manager, was not authorised to give a
warranty for these safes against burglarious attempts.
Mr. James, the counsel for Messrs. Milner, said he did
not wish to occupy the time of the Cor, t with the exami-
nation of scientific witnesses; the question for the jury
was warranty or no warrantry.
The Lord Chief Justice—That is, in fact, the question in
issue.

Mr. Brown (counsel for Messrs. Walker), said he
should like to have it stated whether or no the warrantry
was, if one was given, of a continuous nature. It would
save time in a higher conri:.
The Lord Chief Justice said he should not alter the de-
claration in order to fix the defendants for a warranty for
all time.

The evidence being closed

Mr. James proceeded to address the jury for the defen-
dant, to show there was no warranty, and had proceeded

'or a short time, when

Mr. Digby Seymour said, the case having terminated so
suddenly, he was taken a little by surprise. He should
like to put Mr. Burdoe into the box to speak to the circum-
stances attending the We ho had purchased of the Messrs.
Milner.
The Lord Chief Justice thought it quite unnecessary to
burden the case with going into matters connected with
another safe.
Mr. James then proceeded with his address for the de-
fendants. He contended that it had abundantly been
proved that no warranty had been given, and that the
plaintiff had altogether failed to make out his case.
Mr. D. Seymour replied on the whole case. He said
"'
plaintiff. Ho would ask the jury as mon of common sense,
to ask themselves what the term " holdfast thief proof-
safe" meant. He thought there could be little doubt
but that they would come to the conclusion that the
conversation implied a warranty, beyond all, question.
The circular also went to show—

The Lord Chief Justice—Mr. Seymour, if your going
to tell the jury that words used in the circular, issued by
Mr. Milner, amounts to a warranty, it will be my duty
to tell them it does no such thing.
Mr. Seymour said he was about to show that the circular
bore out the e vidence of young Mr. Walker, who corro-
borated the evidence of his father, viz., that Mr. Hopley
was distinctly asked whether he could warrant the safe
when it was purchased, and he then distinctly stated that
he could. His client now sought to recoup himself for
the loss he had sustained by the reliance ho had placed in
the representations of the defendants, and he hoped the
jury would think he had done but what he had a right to
do in taking this step.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case, said it
was now in a very small compass ; the question whether
Mr. Hopley had authority to warrant the article would re-
main for future consideration. What they had to consider
to-day was whether he did give the Messrs. Walker a war-
ranty when the safe was purchased. Mr. Walker said he
did; and Mr. Hopley, the manager for the defendants, as
distinctly says he did not. The son of Mr. Walker says
an affirmative answer was given his father when he asked
Mr. Hopley if he could warrant the safe as thief proof, and
that Mr. Hopley further said his father would be perfectly
safe in leaving his property in the sate. It was clearly
proved that Mr. Hopley had no authority to warrant the
safes on the part of his principals ; on the contrary, it ap-
peared most distinctly that he was strictly prohibited from
doing so. The learned judge then carefully went through
the evidence, and dwelt particularly on the convarsation
which took place when the safe was purchased. The de-
fendant's manager, it would be recollected, taking Mr.
Walker's evidence into consideration, in reply to the question
whether he could warrant the safety of the property placed
in the safe, did not reply that he could warrant it, but that
Mr. Walker could rest perfectly secure that the safe he
had purchased was a good ono, and that it could not be
opened without the key. It would be for the jury to de-
cide whether there was a warranty, and that was the only I
question they would have to decide.

The jury then retired to consider their verdict, and after
an absence of twenty minutes returned into court with a
verdict for the defendant.

The Lord Chief Justice—You find there was no
warranty.
Foreman—We do, my lord.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. P. Stuart.)
ARDEN V. PARRY.-EDWARDS V. PARRY.-THE HOLBORN