View report page

124
than the foregoing. The Justices held that the letter of August 5th, was
intended by both parties to cover the delivery of the milk in question, and
dismissed the information.
Eustace Hills appeared for the appellant, an inspector under the Act;
Douglas Hogg for the respondent. The Court allowed the appeal.
Daki.ing, J., who delivered the first judgment, said that a warranty could
be applied to goods not in existence at the time it was given. The question
was whether one could gather that this particular can of milk when it was
bought was bought under the warranty in question.
It seemed to him that there was not a sufficient connection between the
consignment in question and the warranty. He thought there must be
established a connection between the particular article complained of and the
warranty. No doubt the respondent would have had a remedy by action for
breach of warranty, but there did not seem to him to be such a connection as
was required by the provisions of Section 25. " Harris r. May " (i2 QB.D. 97)
supported this view, and so did the " Farmers and Cleveland Dairy Company
r. Stevens " (55 J.P. 407). He thought also that the cases of " Laidlaw v.
Wilson" (1894, 1 Q.B. 74) and "Irving r. Callow Park Dairy Company"
(87 L.T. 70) supported his view. It was contended that these eases were
wrong, and were overruled by "Elliot c. Pilcher" (1901,2 K.B. 817). Tf
they had to choose between them lie could not adopt the judgment in the
latter case. He also thought " Elliot r. Pilcher " inconsistent with the later
case of " Irving r. Callow Park Dairy Company" (supra) there was no good
reason why a man should be allowed to rely upon a warranty given perhaps
years before, for a consignor woidd be much more likely to be careless under
those circumstances than he would be if each time he sent out a consignment
of milk he had to make an affirmation that it was of good quality. This
seemed a good reason to him for maintaining the older authorities. He thought
that the appeal should be allowed.
Ridley, J., was of opinion that the appeal ought to be dismissed, and that
the later authorities were in favour of that view.
Lokd Alverstone, L. C. J., agreed with Dari ing, J., that the appeal
should be allowed, but he thought the matter was not free from doubt, and
that the doubt ought to be set right by legislation. He thought there ought
to be a written connection between the consignment and the warranty. The
case of Elliot v. Pilcher (supra) went a great deal too far.
Extract from "Public Health," November, 1900. (p. 108.)
Milk Warranties.—At Old Street Police Court, on September 26th, John
Roberts, milk dealer, of Wilson Street, Finsbury, was summoned for selling
milk below the standard quality. Mr. Ricketts appeared for the defence ; Mr.
Walton prosecuting for the Shoreditch Borough Council. Mr. Ricketts put
in a warranty from Messrs. Marriage & Impey, wholesale contractors for milk
supply. The warranty was for pure milk with all its cream, and was still
unexpired. Mr. Cluer said that if there was no warranty with each parcel of
milk delivered, the recent decision in the King's Bench of Watts r. Stevens
made the warranty valueless. In an argument which followed it was made
clear that the case quoted (L.J.K.B., June, 1906) over-rode a previous decision