WEST, ETC., MANDP'O CO. ». ANSONIA BRA.S8, ETC., CO. 14T �The representations which were made by the plainliff were not mere expressions of opinon, but amounted to a Marranty of quality ; and this warranty was not intended to be tempo- rary, and to terminate with the selection of particular sizes and dimensions, but it was intended to be a guaranty, for a reasonable time after the defendant had given its custom, that the plaintiff's springs should be equal in quality and efûeiency to the Dunbar springs of nine feet in length, which were used for the same respective purposes. The defendant did not test its movements except by starting them in run- ning order, They were speedily put into cases, or they were boxed and sent to the New York office. There the movements were fitted and were set running. The eight-day movements ran eight days and no imperfection was apparent. They were sold to wholesale dealers, and by them to retailers. �After awbile complaints began to come back to the defend- ant in regard to these clocks, and it was >discovered that the springs 4ost their elasticity after being wound a number of times, and, being seven and a half or eight feet long, they ran down before the expiration of the eight days. There was a want of permanent power in the spring, but to what the lack was due the plaintiflF's witnesses did not know. This defect existed only in the eight-day springs, and it existed both in the time and strike springs. Clocks were retnrned, orders were countermanded, and defendant subjeeted to annoyance, loss of reputation, and to direct pecuniary damage. The testi- mony as to the general annoyance to which it was subjeeted by reasûn of this imperfection was abundant. The evidence as to items of direct pecuniary damage* was not abundant. The plaintiff's bill and interest thereon, to September 25, 1879, was $1,984.55. The immediate and direct pecuniary damage to the defendant, resulting from the plaintiff's breaeh of warranty upon said eight-day clook springs, was, with inter- est from the dates of the respective items of damage, at least the sum of $1,984.55, and I do not find affirmatively that it exceeded said sum. �I therefore find the issue for the defendant, and that judgment should be for the defendant to recover its costs. ����
