UNREPORTED CASES. 467 



Alexander and iys^oinEii v. Laidley and others. 

 Before Mr. Baron Alderson, Carlisle Spring Assizes, 1847. 

 Grainger, Temple and Perronet Thompson for the plaintiffs. 

 Atherton and Vance for the defendants. 



This was an action on the Case against the defendants for Rule of the 

 running down the ship of the plaintiffs. Eoad. 



Plea, not guilty. 



Alderson, B., in summing up, said to the Jury, "If there 

 be no peculiar circumstances to the contrary, it is the duty 

 of each party to keep his side. A person must act upon a 

 reasonable and sensible course. If you see a man's carriage 

 standing on the wrong side, you have no business to run it 

 down. If the night be dark and the circumstances are not 

 perceptible, the parties must follow the rule." 



Simpson v. Potts. 

 Before Mr. Barofi Rolfe, Carlisle Spring Assizes, 1847. 



Pashley and Unthank for the plaintiff. 



Temple for the defendant. 



This was an action for Money had and received to recover Sidebones. 

 back the price of a Mare, which had been sold to the plaintiff 

 by the defendant warranted sound. The Warranty was a 

 verbal one, and the plaintiff's case was, that there was a con- 

 dition in it authorizing a return of the Mare, if she should 

 prove unsound, on which ground she had been sent back to 

 the defendant ; or that, at any rate, there had been an actual 

 rescission by consent. 



Mr. Brockbank, a Veterinary Surgeon, proved that the 

 Mare was brought to him by both parties to be examined, as 

 she was lame at that time, and they wished him to say whether 

 it was an unsoundness. He said that the lameness was pro- 

 duced by Sidehones, which is in fact Ossif cation of the Carti- 

 lages («), and is an unsoundness, whether it produce lameness 

 or not. If the Mare had absolute rest for any length of time, 

 the lameness would leave her, but quick work and a hard 

 road would bring it on again ; if she were ploughed, it would 

 not so soon be shown. 



It was contended for the defendant that there was no con- 

 dition in the AVarranty authorizing a return, and that the 

 defendant had taken her back to sell her on behalf of the 

 plaintiff. 



EoLFE, B., told the Jury, "that they must be satisfied, 

 either that the contract was rescinded, or that there was a 



(«) O.«8ifirntion of the CartilagOH, ante. 

 11 H '1 



