68 VICE. 



a sufficient degree of persistence, constitute unsoundness, if 

 tliey diminish, as they usually do, a horse's natural useful- 

 ness; and would, it is thought, entitle a buj'er to reject a 

 horse on a warranty of soundness, even although a special 

 warranty of freedom from vice was not given, 



53. Vice. — Under the heading of unsoundness, several 

 vices have been treated, but there are still other vices which 

 would entitle a buyer of a horse to reject it on the warranty 

 of " freedom from vice," which he could not do under a 

 warranty of soundness. A horse may be sound in wind and 

 limb and a vicious biter when being groomed ; he might 

 have a habit of rearing, and yet be perfectly free from all 

 disease ; he may be a steady worker alone, and restive in 

 the presence of mares; he "may go steadily under the 

 hands of persons of extraordinary skill, like hostlers, but the 

 question is as to the horse's behaviour in ordinary circum- 

 stances, "(a) The distmction between vice and unsoundness 

 must therefore be pointed out. The legal meaning of vice 

 in a horse is a bad habit, either manifested in temper so as 

 to render him dangerous, or diminish his usefulness, or a 

 habit mjurious to health. (6) As in unsoundness, so in vice ; 

 it is frequently a difficult matter to fix the point at which a 

 horse may be considered vicious ; and it is impossible to 

 draw a hard and fast line, for each case must depend upon 

 its own circumstances. Still, when a horse, otherwise 

 perfectly sound, manifests any bad habit of the character 

 indicated, there is such vice as will satisfy the law and 

 entitle the buyer to reject it.(c) 



Friskiness, or " riggishness " from imperfect gelding is 

 evidence of vice in a horse, and in certain circumstances 

 will entitle a buyer to reject it under a warranty of free from 

 vice. On this point Lord Cuninghame observes in charging 



(a) Per Lord Wood in Scott v. Steel, 18.57, 20 D. 253, 257. 



(6) Scholcfidd V. Rohh, 1839, 2 ]\I. and Rob. 210. 



(c) See Geddcs v. Pennington, 1817, 5 Dow, 159 ; 6 Pat. App. 312. 



