TRIAL BEFORE REJECTION. 77 



of the animal stopped, and Lord Cowan observed : — " No 

 impartial trial of her, whether in saddle or harness, or by 

 any other person, was made. . . . The two occasions when 

 the pursuer took the animal out to ride, and the other two 

 occasions when he drove her in a dogcart are held to be 

 a sufficient test of the animal's unfitness, whether for saddle 

 or harness. ... It seems to me impossible to ascribe the 

 animal's alleged misconduct in saddle and harness during 

 these four days to unfitness for purposes for which she 

 showed herself perfectly fit when in the possession of every- 

 one but the pursuer."(«) The buyer, however, must examine 

 his horse and make up his mind without delay, for if it 

 suffer from a defect which is easily discoverable, he will lose 

 his right of rejection if he delay unreasonably to exercise 

 it.(6). 



A horse sent on trial must not be subjected to further 

 work than is sufficient for testing its capacity ; and the 

 buyer on trial must take as good care of it as if he had it on 

 hire. Thus a horse died in the hands of an intending 

 purchaser on trial ; it had been overwrought a day or two 

 previous to its death, and although it was not proved that 

 the over-exertion was the cause of death, it Avas held that 

 the purchaser was bound to show that the death was not 

 due to his blame, (c) The overworking in this case amounted 

 to a trial of how much the horse could do, and was proved 

 to have been hazardous to the health of the horse, which 

 was a young one ; inasmuch as it induced incipient inflam- 

 mation of the intestines, and while suffering from this the 

 horse was further worked the day before its death. Lord 

 Cowan observed : — " The true view, in my opinion, is that the 

 horse was to get a fair trial, was to be used as the pursuer's 

 other horses were, and with that degree of care and caution 

 which a prudent man would exercise in the use of his own 



(rt) Thomson v. Miller, 1859, 21 D. 726. 



(6) Scott V. Steel, 1857, 20 D. 253 ; Smart v. Bcgg, 1852, 14 D. 912 ; Smith 

 Bros. V. Scott, 1875, 2 R. 601, effect of agreement as to rejection, 

 (c) Pullars V. Walker, 1858, 20 D. 1238. 



