which  the  plaintiff  was  bound  to  deliver,  he  sent  to  a  rail-  *ect«a\
way  station,  addressed  for  the  defendant,  certain  seed,  the
produce  of  eleven  acres  and  a  half,  all  in  sacks  of  the  same
sort  belonging  to  the  plaintiff,  and  not  so  marked  as  that
the  produce  of  the  seven  acres  could  be  distinguished,  the
defendant,  finding  that  (as  he  said)  the  seed  was  so  "com-
plicated together,"  refused  to  receive  any  of  it.    The  case
for  the  defendant  was,  that  the  tender  was  fraudulent.
There  was,  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  an  attempt  to  set
up  a  subsequent  tender  of  the  right  quantity ;  but

Bramwell,  B.,  told  the  jury  that  the  sole  question  for
them  was,  whether  the  first  tender  had  been  fraudulent;
for  if  so,  then,  as  against  the  plaintiff,  a  reasonable  time
had  then  elapsed  for  him  to  make  a  tender,  and  a  subse-
quent tender  would  be  too  late ;  did  the  plaintiff  then,
wishing  to  force  the  defendant  to  take  more  than  he  had
bargained  for,  unfairly  tender  the  large  quantity  ?  If  so,
they  should  find  for  the  defendant.
Verdict  for  the  plaintiff  (a).
(a)  Lloyd  got  a  rule,  but  not  for  against  him;  but  the  Court  thought

misdirection ;   and  Day,  on  show-  not.     The  rule  was  absolute  for  a

ing  cause,  raised  the  question  whe-  new  trial  an  against  evidence;  but

ther  there  had  been  misdirection  as  the  case  was  not  tried  again.
782  CASES  AT  THE

^J  Coram  Pollock,  C.  B.
London  Sittings.  JACKSON  v.  HARRISON.
