View report page

61
label constituted such a written warranty as is required by Section
25, Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, was not allowed to be argued
at all, the Lord Chief Justice intimating that "he was not sure that
the point had been raised in the Court below." Where his Lordship
obtained this information it is impossible to state, but I have ample
evidence that the point was taken. Moreover, if the point was not
taken, why did the Magistrate, in stating the case, set out in clear
language that he held " the agreement, &c., constituted such a
warranty," and asked for the opinion of the Court whether he came
to a correct decision in point of law. In this respect the appeal was
not an appeal, and his Worship's question, stated in what would
appear to be plain terms, remained unanswered.
In the second place, the point which was considered and decided
by the Divisional Court was decided in such an ambiguous manner
that it is difficult to feel sure as to the exact findings of the Court.
The question appears to be plain, but the answer is distinctly
involved. Mrs. Sadler was required by the Act to prove to the
satisfaction of the Court that she sold the milk "in the same
state as when she purchased it." She agreed "to buy from E. Warth
about 16 barn gallons of milk, delivered daily, carriage paid, to
Wanstead Park Station," and the question naturally arises at what
point did the responsibility of Warth end and the responsibility of
Mrs. Sadler begin; in other words, when was the purchase complete, or
what was the place of delivery under the contract of sale? The case
stated by the Magistrate clearly sets out this question—"The
appellant contended that the delivery of the churns of milk to the
respondent took place at the time when they were removed from the
train at Wanstead Park Station. . . . the Magistrate held that the
churns of milk were delivered to the respondent at the time they
were placed in the respondent's van and not at the time when they
were removed from the train at Wanstead Park." There is no
ambiguity here. One says "the platform," the other says "the van