small donkey-cart and an ordinary cart for mule or horse. He
proposed the purchase of the smaller cart, stating his reason for
wishing to have it. The donkey-cart was then shown to the intending
purchaser, who, along with two Creole witnesses brought by him to make
out and attest the receipt on the occasion, found some of the iron
fittings defective, and drew the vendor's attention thereto. He, on
his side, engaged, on receiving the amount agreed to for the cart, to
send it off to the blacksmith for immediate repairs, to be delivered to
the purchaser next morning at the latest. On this understanding the
purchase money was paid down, and the [99] receipt, specifying that the
sum therein mentioned was for a donkey-cart, passed from the vendor to
the purchaser of the little vehicle. Next day at about noon the man
went with his donkey for the cart. Arrived there, his countryman had
the larger of the two carts brought out, and in pretended innocence
said to the purchaser of the donkey-cart, "Here is your cart." On this
a warm dispute arose, which was not abated by the presence and protests
of the two witnesses of the day before, who had hastily been summoned
by the victim to bear out his contention that it was the donkey-cart
and not the larger cart which had been examined, bargained for,
purchased, and promised to be delivered, the day before.

The matter, on account of the sturdiness of the rascal's denials, had
to be referred to a court of law. The complainant engaged an able
solicitor, who laid the case before Mr. 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 embarra