Mayne in all its transparent
simplicity and strength. The defendant, although he had, and as a
matter of fact could have, no means of invalidating the evidence of
the two witnesses, and above all of his receipt with his signature,
relied upon the fact that the cart which he [100] offered was much
larger than the one the complainant had actually bought, and that
therefore complainant would be the gainer by the transaction.
Incredible as it may sound, this view of the case commended itself to
the magistrate, who adopted it in giving his judgment against the
complainant. In vain did the solicitor protest that all the facts of
the case were centred in the desire and intention of the prosecutor
to have specifically a donkey-cart, which was abundantly proved by
everything that had come out in the proceedings. In vain also was
his endeavour to show that a man having only a donkey would be
hopelessly embarrassed by having a cart for it which was entirely
intended for animals of much larger size. The magistrate solemnly
reiterated his decision, and wound up by saying that the victim had
lost his case through disregard of the legal maxim caveat emptor--let
the purchaser be careful.
Pages:
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104