■UNREPORTHl) CASES. 479 



Buckingham v. Eogers. 

 Before Martin, B., Guildhall, Dec. \2>th, 1864. 



Huddleston, Q.C., and Barnard, for the plaintiff. 



//. James and Talfourd Salter for the Defendant. 



This was an action on the Warranty of a Horse. Disease of the 



The plaintiff, a Horsedealer, on the 2nd of Juno, 1864, Lungs, 

 purchased at Eugby Fair a grey Mare, fit for cartwork, from 

 the defendant, who was farm bailiff under Mr. Nash, the 

 manager of Lord Shrewsbury, to whom the Horse belonged. 

 A written "Warranty was given with the Mare, which was sold 

 for 29/. The plaintiff' brought her up to London, and ac- 

 cording to his case, she shortly after appeared ill, whereupon 

 he called in a farmer to doctor her. She seemed at first to 

 recover, but eventually, on the 26th of July, she died, when it 

 was discovered that her lungs, liver and spleen were most 

 extensively diseased. The plaintiff's witness swore that the 

 animal must have been greatly diseased at the period she 

 was piirchased by the plaintiff. 



The defence was, that the animal had been in perfect 

 health up to the time the Warranty was given, and that the 

 disease was the effect of her being put into a hot stable and 

 fed upon stimulating food. 



The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. 



Elvin v. Chapman. 

 Before Lord Camphell, C. J., Norivich Spring Assizes, 1853. 

 G'Malley, Q.C., and Evans, for the plaintiff. 

 Prendergast, Q.C., and Bulwer, for the defendant. 

 This was an action on the Case for damage sustained by the Negligent 

 plaintiff, in consequence of being thrown out of his cart by driving in 

 a collision occasioned by the negligent driving of the defend- • 



ant's son. 



The plaintiff was a small tradesman living at Marsham, a 

 village between Aylsham and Norwich, to and from which 

 city a coach runs daily, the defendant being its owner, and 

 his son the driver. On the 7th of February the plaintiff' was 

 driving home in his Pony cart from Aylsham in the evening, 

 when as he approached the last gas-lamp he was suddenly 

 appi-ised by a friend, to whom he was giving a lift, of the 

 approach of the coach on its wrong side and without lamps. 

 . The plaintiff stated that he called out and drew up to the 

 wall on his proper side to avoid the coach, but the coachman 

 seemed to be ignorant of, or indifferent to, the call, and drove 

 on till the splinter-bar struck the cart-wheel with such vio- 

 lence as to force the cart against the Avail and project the 



