Case Facts
Walter Carwardine, the brother of the defendant, was murdered in Hereford on the night of 24 March 1831. His body was found in the River Wye on 12 April 1831. On 25 April 1831, the defendant caused a handbill to be published offering two rewards: £10 for the apprehension of one Sarah Coley, and £20 for information leading to the discovery of the murder of Walter Carwardine, payable upon conviction. The handbill stated that "whoever will give such information as may lead to a discovery of the murder of the said Walter Carwardine, shall, on conviction, receive a reward of £20; and any person concerned therein, or privy thereto (except the party who actually committed the offence), shall be entitled to such reward, and every exertion used to procure a pardon."
The plaintiff, Mary Anne Williams, had previously been examined as a witness at the Hereford Summer Assizes of 1831, when Pugh and Connop were tried for the murder and acquitted. Shortly afterwards, having been dreadfully beaten by William Williams and believing she was not likely to recover from her injuries, she made a disclosure to Mr Howells, the swordbearer of the city of Hereford. On 23 August 1831, the plaintiff made a sworn voluntary statement before a magistrate, William Milton, in which she identified Pugh, Williams, Matthews, and Coley as those responsible for the murder. She stated in that declaration that she came forward "to ease her conscience, and in hopes of forgiveness hereafter," given her "miserable and unhappy situation, and believing that she has not long to live."
William Williams, Joseph Pugh, and John Matthews were subsequently convicted of the murder at the Hereford Assizes on 20 March 1832, in consequence of the information the plaintiff had provided. The plaintiff thereafter brought an action in assumpsit against the defendant to claim the £20 reward. The declaration contained eight counts. In the first count, the plaintiff averred that she, "confiding in the said promise of the said defendant," had given the information that led to the discovery of the murder and the conviction of the murderers. The trial took place at the Hereford Assizes on 22 March 1833.
The jury found that the plaintiff had not given her information in consequence of the offered reward, but from other motives — namely, to ease her conscience.
Held
Notwithstanding the jury's finding that the plaintiff's motive was not to obtain the reward, the court held that she was entitled to the £20. The plaintiff had knowledge of the handbill at the time she gave the information, and she had fulfilled all of the conditions specified within it. The conviction of the murderers had followed as a result of her disclosure.
The court determined that the motive of the person giving the information is not a material consideration. What matters is that the plaintiff had knowledge of the offer and had performed the act stipulated by it. On those facts, a binding contract arose, and the defendant was obliged to pay the promised reward.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio of this case establishes a foundational principle of unilateral contract law: where a person makes a public offer promising a reward in exchange for the performance of a specified act, any person who has knowledge of that offer and performs the stipulated act is entitled to the reward, regardless of the motive that induced their performance.
The court reasoned that once the conditions of the offer are satisfied by someone who was aware of the offer, a contract is concluded. The offeror's promise becomes legally binding at the moment of performance. It is not necessary that the act was performed for the purpose of obtaining the reward; it is sufficient that the claimant knew of the offer and carried out what was required of it.
The court also articulated an important practical rule as to priority: where more than one person seeks to claim the same reward, it is the first person to give the qualifying information who is entitled to it. If two persons go together to give the information simultaneously, they must bring a joint action for the reward.
This case is frequently read alongside Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893], which later confirmed and elaborated upon the legal framework governing unilateral contracts and public offers. Together, these cases stand for the proposition that a public advertisement in the form of a unilateral offer does not constitute a mere invitation to treat but can give rise to a binding obligation enforceable in contract.
The principle is also contrasted with R v Clarke (1927), an Australian decision in which a claimant sought a reward having entirely forgotten about the offer at the time of his performance. In that case, the court declined to allow recovery, distinguishing the position from one where the claimant merely had an ulterior motive, on the basis that there was no subjective awareness of the offer at all. The contrast with the present case underlines that knowledge of the offer — even where the motive for performance is not the reward — is sufficient to found the claim.
Obiter Dicta
Not applicable.