upon inspection only be determined to be counterfeited without some previous knowledge of the genuine hand-writing, the hand-writings of men being as various as their faces. Opinions of skilful engineers and mariners, &c. may be given in evidence in matters depending upon skill, viz. as to what effect an embankment in a particular situation may have upon a harbour, or whether a ship has been navigated skilfully. Because, in such cases, the witness has a knowledge of the alleged cause, and his skill enables him to judge and form a belief of the effect. I had never known such loose general evidence admitted, or even offered, and it struck me, that the admission of it would produce much mischief, and greatly endanger written securities." The evidence on the part of the defendant of the subscribing witnesses to the warrant of attorney and others, was so strong, that the jury declared themselves satisfied, and found a verdict for the defendant. Knowlys, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that this evidence was admissible, and had been rejected. And now, Marryat and Gurney shewed cause, and suggested' that, this being an issue to satisfy the conscience of the Court, a new trial ought not to be granted, unless evidence of a cogent nature had been rejected. And they contended, that whether this was admissible or not, still that, at all events, it could not have produced any alteration in the verdict. Knowlys and Chitty, contrà. Goodtitle dem. Revett v. Braham (a), and Rex v. Cator (b), establish the admis 1822. GURNEY against LANGLANDS. sibility 1822. GURNEY against LANGLANDS. sibility of the evidence. In Birch v. Crewe, London sittings after Trinity term, 1821, the same evidence here offered was received by Abbott C. J. It is impossible to say what effect it might have produced on the jury, because, if not overruled, it would have been followed up by the evidence of many other skilful persons to the same effect. And when evidence has been wholly excluded, the Court will not weigh very nicely what effect it might have had if received. ABBOTT C. J. I have long been of opinion, that evidence of this description, whether in strictness of law receivable or not, ought, if received, to have no great weight given to it. This was an issue directed by the Court, in order to enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon a rule pending before them. The other evidence in this case was of so cogent a description as to have produced a verdict satisfactory to the Judge who tried the cause; and I can pronounce my judgment much more to my own satisfaction upon a verdict so found, than if this evidence had been admit.ted, and had produced a contrary verdict. For I think it much too loose to be the foundation of a judicial decision, either by judges or juries. The rule, therefore, for a new trial must be discharged. BAYLEY J. Concurred. HOLROYD J. I have great doubt whether this is legal evidence; but I am perfectly clear that it is, if received, entitled to no weight; and this being an issue directed to satisfy the Court, we shall best exercise our discretion by refusing a new trial. BEST BEST J. There can be no doubt that this is not, in all probability, the natural hand-writing of the party; for it is clear, that if at the time he wrote it he had the intention to dispute the deed, he would not sign it in his usual mode. The evidence, therefore, if received, would be entitled to no weight. It is impossible for any person to speak to hand-writing being an imitation, unless he has seen the original; and it does not appear to me necessarily to follow, that an inspector of franks has peculiar means of ascertaining imitated handwriting. I think, at all events, this evidence was properly rejected, sufficient ground not having been previously laid for receiving it. But still, even if it was receivable, I am satisfied that, on the ground stated by my Lord Chief Justice, this rule ought to be discharged. Rule discharged. 1822. GURNEY against LANGLANDS. FAREBROTHER against SIMMONS. templated by of the statute of to bind a de fendant by his signature, must ASSUMPSIT by the plaintiff, an auctioneer, against The agent corithe defendant, for not taking or clearing away or pay- the 17th sect. ing the purchase-money, being 34l., for a lot of turnips, frauds, who is standing and being on certain land. Second count, for crops of turnips bargained and sold, &c., and the usual money-counts. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Wood B., at the last assizes for the county of Surry, the only question was, whether there was a sufficient con be a third per son, and not the other contract ing party; and therefore, where an auctioneer wrote down the defendant's name by his authority opposite to the lot purchased: Held, that in an action brought in the name of the auctioneer, the entry in such book was not sufficient to take the case out of the statute. VOL. V. Z tract 1822. FAREBROTHER against SIMMONS. tract in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. It appeared that the contract given in evidence was the book. in which the plaintiff himself had written down the different biddings opposite to the lots, and which book had been duly stamped. The learned Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, reserving to the defendant liberty to move to enter a nonsuit. Marryat, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule nisi for that purpose, and cited Wright v. Dannah (a). This was Gurney and Abraham now shewed cause. no interest in land; for the turnips having ceased to grow, the land merely was a warehouse for them. But even if this be not so, the book is sufficient to take the case out of the statute. For the plaintiff may be considered as the agent of both himself and the defendant for the purpose of reducing the contract into writing. The case of Wright v. Dannah is distinguishable. There the party who wrote the memorandum was the person who made the sale for his own benefit. Here it is the case of an auctioneer, who has no personal interest in the transaction. ABBOTT C. J. The most favourable way for the plaintiff is to treat the question as a case of goods sold and delivered; and then, the goods being above the price of 10%., the case will fall within the 17th section of the statute of frauds, which requires some note or memorandum in writing of the bargain, to be made and signed by the parties to be charged by it, or their agents, thereunto lawfully authorised. Now, the question is, whether the (a) 2 Camp. 203. writing writing down the defendant's name by the plaintiff, with the authority of the defendant, be in law a signing by the defendant's agent. In general, an auctioneer may be considered as the agent and witness of both parties. But the difficulty arises, in this case, from the auctioneer suing as one of the contracting parties. The case of Wright v. Dannah seems to me to be in point, and fortifies the conclusion at which I have arrived, viz. that the agent contemplated by the legislature, who is to bind a defendant by his signature, must be some third person, and not the other contracting party upon the record. 1822. FAREBROTHER against SIMMONS. Rule absolute. BENSLEY and Another against BIGNOLD. ACTION by the plaintiffs, who were printers, to recover the sum of 927. 5s. for printing a pamphlet, intitled, "An Elucidation of the System of Fire and Life Insurance." Part of the charge was for print ing and part for paper. At the trial before Abbott C. J., at the London sittings after last Hilary term, the pamphlet was produced, and it purported to be printed by Pinnock and Maunder, 267, Strand, and not by the plaintiffs. It was objected, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiffs could not recover, the 39 G. 3. c. 79. s. 27. having enacted, "That every person who shall print any paper or book whatsoever, which shall be meant or intended to be published or dispersed, whether the same shall be sold or given away, shall print upon the front of every such paper, if the same Z 2 shall A printer canlabour or ma not recover for terials used in printing any work, unless he affixes his name to it, pursuant 5. to the 59 G. 3. c. 79. s. 27. |