RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XL, Issue 205, 21 August 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LBefore L. Broad, E«q.,B.M.] Cook v. Harlbt. His Worship delivered the following judgment this morniug:— This is an action for damages for alleged breich of warranty. The plaintiff has not succ eled in proving an express warranty, but he contends that the defendant is liab'e on an implied warraoty. I do not think ifc proved by the evidence that the iambs were not in the condition defend mt represented them to be in the month of December; at any rate plaintiff had ample opportunity of ascertaining their actual condition before buying them, as they were running in the next padlock to his. Where the correctness or incorrectness of the vendors representations may be easiy ascertained by the party inttrestel in koo^ing the truth, and he fails to use ordinary diligence in enquiring, the law will not* siy that the representations amount to an implied warranty, unleaß it ia clear that the representations were made for tha purpose of: throwing ths purchaser off his guard and preventing him from making those enquiries which ev&ry prudent person ought to make. He c the plaintiff did not use ordinary diligence, and all the defendant said was merely puff, and that of a very moderate kind. Judgment for defendant with cotta.