316 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



bargain to take the horse back again, and return the 

 money if he was unsound. I cannot, I confess, ex- 

 actly understand the distinction taken by the learned 

 judge, but the niceties of pleading are not always in- 

 telligible even to the initiated. 



The unsoundness in this case was that the horse 

 was a roarer. 



I refer my readers to the case of Towers v. Bar- 

 rett, 1 T. R. 133, for an elaborate argument on the 

 question of pleading alluded to above ; and the case 

 of Weston v. Downs, Doug. 23, and fully quoted in 

 Selwyn's N. P., page 98, to which case reference 

 is made in Towers v. Barrett, may also be properly 

 cited. 



Another very important point, that every dealer 

 or seller must bear in mind is, that a groom or other 

 agent employed to sell a horse, is authorized to exer- 

 cise a discretion in warranting him, and may do so 

 even contrary to the positive instructions of his mas- 

 ter, and fix his master with liability. The following 

 cases are very strong upon this point : — 



Holyear v. Hawke, 5 Espinasse, 72. — " Where a 

 principal employs an agent or servant to sell for him, 

 what such agent says as a warranty or representation 



