Star.
London, England, 1810-08-09 00:00:00

BOYCE V. WARBeIITO.

This was an action for breach of contract. The
plaintiff, by his brokers, Messrs. Young and \Vrixon,
had sold a quantity of deals to the defendant ; which
were stated in the contract to be Greffyl deals : the
contract also specified, that the purchaser should have
the privilege of selecting and returning such deals as
were broken or sappy. Defendant was to pay £95
per hundred for planks of 14 feet lone, and from tuo
to three inches thick. The plaintiff was represented
as a person totally ignorant of the timber trade ; and
at the time the contrast was entered into, the broker
had not seen the deals, but acted merely from the re-
presentation which the plaintiff had made to him of
their quality. The defendant, on the deals being
sent to him, refused to receive them, alledging that
they were not Grettyl deals, as he had been taught to
believe, but that they were an inferior description of
Stockholm deals ; the timber-merchants always un-
derstanding the deals exported from Greffyl to be
"rough-sawn," by a machine, while those from Stock-
holm were " fine-sawn" by the hand, which was the
case with the deals in question.
Mr. Young, who drew up the contract, statetl,
that if he had seen the deals before the contract had
been entered into, he would not have sold them un-
der the designation of Greffyl deals : they appeared
to him to be an inferior description of Stockholm
deals, worth- perhaps from three to four pounds per
hundred less than real Greffyls. He, however, un.
derstood that they hat latterly got into the habit of
" fine sawing" their worst timber at Greffyl ; he had
seen cargoes, alledged to have been manuactured
there, similar to those of the plaintiff, but he could
not speak from his own knowledge.
Mr. Pratt, who purchased the deals at Greffyl for
Plaintiff, swore positively that they were, although
fine-sawn, bona fill Greffyl deals. He had never known
during the period he resided at Greffyl and Stock-
holm, any deals sent from the latter place to the
former for the purpose of exportation.

It appeared, that the plaintiff e:posed to sale, by
public auction, great quantities of coffee, at Garra-
way's, on the 224,May last, and that the defendants
purchased 17 lots of damaged coffee at such sale.
Mr. Bishop, the broker, who sold the coffee in
question, acknowledged that inquiries were made at
the time of the sale, to know whether any of the bags
of damaged coffee had been repacked : and that he
answered, he did not know—he knew nothing about
them—that he sold them with all faults, gave no
warranty, and that the buyers must take them as they
found them, the goods being sold for the benefit of
underwriters —they might give what they pleased for
the goods, but they could not warrant them. The
coffee was warehoused in the West India Dock Com-
pany's warehouses, who, on the back of the receipts
which they gave, had charged, as specified on the
backs of said receipts, a sum of £6O altogether for
new bags, to repack the damaged coffee, and witness
had paid that money for such new bags and packages.
The ATTORNEY GRNERAL, on the part of the deten.
dants, here interposed. He submitted that the plain-
tiff must be non-suited, as their accredited agent had
sold goods that had been repacked, and for which
repacking he had paid the West-India Dock Com:
pony, while he stated to the buyers, when asked f
the coffee were in the old bags, that he did not know
of its being repacked. Damaged coffee, re-packed,
was not worth above two-thirds of what it is when
in the old bags, and that, too, for this reason—when
coffee, damaged by the sea, remained in the old bags,
there was a very great chance of finding a great por-
tion of it not damaged, the sea having very probably
only affected the corners oi. the packages ; but if, on
the contrary, this coffee was repacked, it got so mixed
by the operation, that it was next to impossible to se-I
parate the good from the damaged. That accounted'
for the depreciation in value of damaged coffee when
repacked.
Mr. GARnow contended, on the part of the plain- ,
tiff, that the sale was such as ought to be effectual ;
fes the broker had said, that he did not know of their
being repacked, and told the persons present at the
sale that they might give what they pleased for the
(goods, but that he would not warrant them.
Lord ELLENBOROVGLI observed, that it was always
'to be presumed that a man knew what it was his bu-
siness to know where he had adequate means in his In consequence of the decision that was given in
the case of Mr. CAPILL, that the owners of grounds
power to obtain such knowledge. In the present in-
stance, it was the Broker's business to know if any of the ' had a right to prevent persons going over them after
;damaged coffee was repacked, and he had the means in hounds, and, particularly the owners of them after
his power of obtaining such Information, for he had, notice, two or three packs of fox-hounds have already
antecedently to the sale, paid for the repackages. The been brought to the hammer.
Broker had inadvertently informed the buyers that he In a late case determined in the Court of King's
did not know of any repackages, and by that impro- Bench, it has been ruled that parish officers cannot
vident observation, induced persons to buy at a price maintain a right to assess without they first prove from
which, under other circumstances, they would not what lands or premises they claim their rates ; and
have agreed to give. Ile pl+intiliwas accordingly that it is not for them to oblige a person who may be
Non-suited. 1 aggrieved to prove they are In the wrong.

Lord ELLENBOROVOids in summing up the evidence,
lamented the want of precision which so frequently
was observable in contracts. Had the contract be.
fore them specified " good rough-sawn Greffyl
deals," instead of plain " Greffyl deals," there would
have been an end of the action. because they did not
come under the former denomination. But as" Gref.
fyl deals" were alone specified, and a witness, whose
evidence had no right to be doubted, had sworn to
the fact of their being that description of timber, he
thought the defendant must abide by the contract.—
Verdict for plaintiff £ll4.