112 England's horses, 



this horse was a roarer. To prove a breach of warranty, he 

 must go on to show that the roaring was symptomatic of 

 disease.'' 



Mr. Baron Parke says — " If the disease was not of a 

 nature to impede the natural usefuhiess of the animal for 

 the purpose for which he is used — as, for instance, if a 

 horse had a slight pimple on his skin, it would not amount 

 to unsoundness ; but even if such a thing as a pimple were 

 on some parts of the body where it might have that eft'ect 

 — for instance, on a part which would prevent the putting 

 a saddle or bridle on the animal, it would then be dif- 

 ferent." 



Now, with all this " rubbish " confronting us from the 

 judicial bench, is it not apparent that simple and effective 

 legislation, comprehensive in theory and handy in practice, 

 is demanded ? A careful perusal of all the trials upon 

 veterinary jurisprudence for a quarter of a century that 

 have come under my notice, have led me to form the 

 opinion that an effective measure may be arrived at for the 

 abolition of conflicting evidence and judicial ignorance in 

 " horse cases." 



I would abolish warranty altogether, as the very root of 

 all the trouble, perjury, worry, and infamy, that characterise 

 litigations arising from sale and purchase of horses. I 

 would substitute for it a liberal trial, dependent for its du- 

 ration upon the fitness of the individual animal. For what 

 might be only a " bit of exercise " for a horse " in work,'* 

 would, too often, result in the ruin of a valuable animal 

 prepared and standing for sale. After the trial, the sound- 

 ness or unsoundess of the horse remained with the vete- 

 rinary surgeon selected by the purchaser to examine for 

 him, 



A veterinary surgeon is placed in the position of, say, a 

 solicitor. The party requiring his servic 3s is his client for 



