196 Mercantile persons.

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

principal's authority; as, for instance, by selling false jewels foi

true ones : the reason given for this by Lord C. J. Holt appears a

sensible one. "Seeing," says he, "that some one must be a losei

by the deceit, it is more reasonable that he who employs and con-

fides in the deceiver, should be the loser, tban a stranger." (v) Such

certainly was the opinion of the Roman lawyers, '^ Procuratoris

scientiam et dolum nocere debere domino^ neque Fom/ponius duhitat

neque nos duhitamusy Dig. 14, tit. 4, Ulpian.

In general, the principal is not criminalhj responsible for the

act of his agent, unless he expressly commanded it. {w) However,

in a case of indictment for libel, it was held, that the person who

derived profit from, and furnished the means of carrying on, a

newspaper, intrusting the publication to one whom he selected, and

in whom he confided, would be criminally answerable for what

appeared therein, though it could not be shown that he was con-

cerned in the individual publication ; (x) so in informations for

breaches of the revenue laws, the employment of an agent in the

defendant's usual course of business has been held sufficient evidence.

iy) See the observations of Bayley, B., in Att. Gen. v. Siddon, 1 Tjrw. 46, 47. 1

C. & J. 220. Taylor v. Green, 8 C. & P. 316. Willett v. Chambers, Cowp. 814. Rapp

t'. Latham, 2 B. & A. 195. Marsh v. Keating, 1 Bing. K C. 198. Hern v. Nicholls, 1

Sal. 289, cited by Baron Parke, in Cornfoot v. Fowke, 6 M. <fe W. 358. "It must be

conceded," says his Lordship, " that if one employ an agent to make a contract, and

that agent in making it, knowingly commit a fraud, though the principal be perfectly

guiltless, not only is the contract void, but the principal is liable to an action." VitU

etiain Grammar v. Nixon, 1 Str. 653. Crockford v. Winter, 1 Camp. 124, per Lord

Ellenborough. Southern v. How, Bridgman, 126-Y ; 2 Moll. 330; Cro. Jac. 468. R,

V. Bower, Cowp. 323. See, however, 9 h. 6, 53 b, cited in Bro. Abr., " Action sur le

Case," where per curiam, " If ni}'^ servant sell false stuff, an action on the case does

not lie against me, unless he sold it through my covin, or by my command."

(w) 2 Str. 885 ; R. v. Huggins, per Raym. C. J., Lamb's Ca., 9 Co. 59.

{x) R. V. Gutch, 1 M. cfe M. 437. See R. o. Almon, 2 Burr. 2686. R. v. Dixon, 2

M. & S. 11. See Colburn v. Patmore, 1 C. M. & R. 73 ; 4 Tyrw. 677.

traveller greatly enhanced." S. P. Southwick v. Ertes, 7 Gushing Rep. 385. For the

general doctrine, see Shaw v. Reed, 9 Watts & Serg. 72. Wilson v. Peverly, 2 N. H.

548. Foster V. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479. Vanderbilt V. Richmond Turnpike Co., 1

Hill, 480; 2 Comst. 479. Harris v. Nicholas, 5 Munf. 483. Church v. Mansfield, 20

Conn. 284. Armstrong v. Cooley, 6 Gilm. 512. Mitchell v. Crass weller, 16 E. L. A

E. R. 448, and cases cited by annotator.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 197

Riglits of third Persons against Principal.

to be left to a jury, who may, if they think fit, thence presume, that

such an agent was authorized to do the prohibited act, with which