476 APPEXuix. 



was taken back to the defendant's, and an end put to the 

 purchase. 



The case for the defendant rested on the ground that the 

 Horse had been in his possession since he was two years old, 

 and never had any such disease as that stated by the plain- 

 tiff's witnesses ; that his feet had always remained of the 

 same appearance from birth, and that the Horse had never 

 been lame with him but once from the prick of a thorn. To 

 make out this defence the person who bred the Horse was 

 called, and he said that at eighteen months old the Horse got 

 two prizes as being well formed ; that he had good strong 

 feet when the defendant purchased him at two years old, in 

 1842 ; and in 1844, when the witness again saw him, his feet 

 had not been altered by any disease. The next witness was 

 the Groom of the defendant in whose care the Horse had 

 always been, and he said the Horse was rather fiat-footed, 

 and his hoof was a little ribbed outside and sunk. He had, 

 however, always been so, and had never had fever in his feet 

 or any other disease, or shown any lameness except on the 

 occasion when he was proved to have been first returned, and 

 then only, as was at the time discovered, from the effects of a 

 thorn, which was perfectly cured in a few days. The Horse 

 had been hunted frequently before the defendant sold him, as 

 also after having lately come back into the defendant's ]ios- 

 session, without exhibiting any lameness whatever. This 

 witness also stated, that, although in the defendant's yard on 

 the occasion alluded to by some of the j)laintiff's witnesses, 

 he had never heard the defendant say to any one that the 

 Horse had had fever in his feet, or talk particularly about the 

 Horse's feet. Other witnesses were called to prove that no 

 alteration from disease had taken place in the Horse's feet, 

 and that, though often seen out, the Horse had never been 

 observed lame, one of the witnesses who proved this latter 

 circumstance being the son of the party who purchased the 

 Horse at Dickson's. 



The Lord Chief Justice left it to the Jury to say whether or 

 not when the Horse was sold to the plaintiff, the structure of 

 his feet had been altered by disease to such an extent as to 

 cause lameness, and render him unfit for ordinary purposes. 

 If they thought such had been the case, then they ought to 

 find for the plaintiff, but if otherwise then for the defendant. 

 The amount of damage, if any, should be the difference be- 

 tween the cost price to the plaintiff and that for which the 

 Horse was sold. 



The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 

 99/. 65. ed. 



