ACTIONS AT LAW. 195 



of long standing, and that, if an animal were drugged, the 

 unsoundness would not be so apparent, especially if it 

 had been kept without food or water. An animal that 

 had been drugged would have a craving for drink, as this 

 one had been stated to have. He gave a decided opinion, 

 from his observation of the animal, that it had been 

 drugged. The bleeding at the nose was owing to congested 

 lungs. The plaintiff and his witnesses, it may be stated, 

 denied in cross-examination that they had any knowledge 

 of the animal having been drugged. 



Mr. William Todd, in his reply on behalf of the plaintiff, 

 said it was well known that horse dealers were not the 

 most honest people in the world. It was with them, he 

 thought, a case of " diamond cut diamond," and if one horse 

 dealer could deceive another he believed it was perfectly 

 fair to do so. It was not to be supposed that the 

 plaintiff, having a broken-winded horse to sell, would cry 

 stinking fish. And when a man went to an auction and 

 bought a horse which was not warranted, he took his 

 chance of being " taken in." 



The Judge, in summing up, pointed out to the jury 

 that the whole question for them to consider was whether 

 the horse was drugged or not, for if it was drugged, that 

 would amount to a fraud, and a fraud would vitiate a 

 contract. 



The Jury found a verdict for the defendant. 



[Note. — The decision in favour of the defendant in this 

 case was unquestionably right. Obviously the animal 

 was unsound at the time of sale, and the evidence supported 

 the view that the horse had been drugged in order to mask 

 the signs of the complaint from which it then was, and had 

 been, suffering for a considerable period.] 



13* 



