662 THE HORSE. 
consider the animal to be unsound until he gave notice to the vendor ; 
and this is strong presumptive evidence that the unsoundness did not 
exist. 
THE DEFINITION OF UNSOUNDNESS is, “ the existence of disease or altera- 
tion of structure which does or will impair the horse’s natural usefulness.” 
Vice also may be defined, on a similar principle, as “the prevalence of a 
habit which interferes with the horse’s natural usefulness.” But these 
definitions must be taken with some modifications, for there is not one 
horse in a hundred which does not possess some disease or vice likely to 
impair his general usefulness to some slight extent ; indeed, the proportion 
of strictly sound horses may be considered to be much smaller even than 
this. A bad feeder is so generally from a disordered state of stomach, 
and such a horse cannot stand work like one which will consume double 
the quantity of corn, yet he would not be considered unsound; nor would 
a horse be returnable as vicious if he showed the usual symptoms of 
being “fresh,” though they might impair his usefulness in carrying a 
timid rider. But subject to such modifications, the above definitions 
may be accepted as sufficient to make intelligible the terms, Unsoundness 
and Vice. 
TuE FOLLOWING DISEASES and accidents are generally considered not to 
render their possessors unsound :— 
Boe sPavIn, in a slight degree only. 
A BROKEN KNEE, unless the joint is injured so as to impair its functions, 
is not considered to be unsoundness. 
CAPPED HOCKS AND ELBOWS do not produce any lameness, nor do they 
in any way interfere with the action of the joints to which they are 
adjacent. 
CoNTRACTION OF THE FOOT is no evidence of disease, and, taken by 
itself, is not sufficient to prove it to be unsound. 
CRIB-BITING was decided, in the cases of Broennenbury v. Haycock and 
Scolefield v. Lobb, not to be unsoundness ; but Baron Parker ruled in the 
latter that it came within the meaning of the word “ vice.” Undoubtedly 
this is a habit which is generally attended by impaired digestion, and, as 
such, it comes strictly within the definition given above ; but the law is 
as I have stated it. 
Cursy Hocks, though experience may tell us they are likely to be 
attended by curbs, are decided not to be unsoundness. In Brown v. 
Elkington, the attention of the vendor was directed to the hocks by the 
purchaser before the sale, as likely to spring curbs ; but in the action on 
the warranty it was held by Lord Abinger that “a defect in the formation 
of the horse, which had not occasioned lameness at the time of sale, 
though it might render the animal more liable to be lame at some future 
time, was no breach of warranty ;” and the Court of Exchequer confirmed 
this view of the law, by refusing a rule for a new trial. 
CurtinG, on the same principle, is no breach of warranty, unless the 
horse is lame from it at the time of sale. 
A sPLINT is not, in itself, evidence of unsoundness; but if it is so 
situated as necessarily to interfere with the suspensory ligament or 
tendons, or if it has already produced lameness, it is to be accepted as a 
mark of unsoundness. 
THOROUGHPIN, when existing to a moderate extent, is not sufficient to 
render the horse unsound ; but this will always be a question of opinion, 
and a horse with thoroughpin is, therefore, not to be warranted with 
safety. 
