DANGEROUS HABITS. G9 



a jury, wliere an action was raised on a breach of warranty 

 of a horse sold as " hale and sound and free from vice " : — 

 " Any imperfection in cutting the stones of the animal is not 

 a breach of warranty, if in point of fact it does not affect 

 the steadiness of the horse ; at the same time I can conceive 

 many situations in which a horse may be bought, and in 

 reference to which this might be a good objection under the 

 warranty, as for example in the case of a horse bought for a 

 lady or for other riding purposes, (a) 



54. Dangerous Habits. — Under this category come habits 

 of backing and jibbing, which, if persistent, undoubtedly 

 amount to vice, and if permanently incurable, may even 

 constitute unsoundness. Biting, kicking, rearing when incur- 

 able, and bolting without cause, if of sufficient persistence to 

 amount to a habit, are vices, (6) but isolated instances of any 

 such behaviour would not suffice to prove a horse vicious. 

 Thus Pollock, C.B., observed (c) : — " A horse put into a new 

 harness and an unaccustomed carriage once or twice may 

 kick and yet be deserving of a warranty of being quiet in 

 harness." Shying has been held a vice. Thus, where a 

 mare was sold warranted quiet in harness but proving liable 

 to shy gi'eatly at stage coaches, it was held, though she Avas 

 completely cured shortly after being returned, that the 

 purchaser was entitled to reject her, and was not bound to 

 break her in for the use for which she was Avarranted as fit 

 at the time.(cZ) 



Any other evil habit a horse may exhibit under the 

 necessary operations of grooming, harnessmg, or shoeing, if 

 inveterate and dangerous to its attendant, is a breach of 

 Avarranty of freedom from vice. Thus, Lord Justice-Clerk 

 Hope observed (e) : — " Xoav, if any peculiar mode of attach- 



(a) Fisher v. Ure, 1846, 9 D. 17. 



(b) Oliphant, p. 75. 



(c) Buckbigliam v. Reeve, N.P. Ex. 1857, cit. Oliphant, 122. 



{d) Bc'jbie V. Robertson, 1828, 6 S. 1014 ; see also Rose v. Johnston, 1878, 5 R. 

 600. 



(e) Scott V. Steel, cit. 257. 



