198 ACTIONS AT LAW. 



Mr. B. Cartledge, of vSheffield, Fellow of the Royal College 

 of Veterinary Surgeons, ex-president, and Member of the 

 Court of Examiners, was called. He said he examined 

 the horse on the 9th of June, immediately on its arrival 

 at Sheffield from London, and found the animal unsound 

 in its wind. This he at once telegraphed to the defendant. 

 The disease must have existed for some weeks at least. He 

 examined the horse again on July 13th, and he was still 

 a " roarer," and would remain a " roarer." He was not 

 only an unsound horse, but for the purpose of hunting was, 

 comparatively speaking, of no value. Cross-examined : 

 " Grunting " and " roaring " were two different things. 

 " Grunting " was a habit, and suggestive of " roaring," but 

 of itself was not unsoundness. " Roaring " was a disease, 

 and was unsoundness. The case of the horse Pembroke 

 was clearly one of disease. 



Mr. Hoole, veterinary surgeon, Sheffield, had likewise 

 examined the horse, and found him a " roarer." He con- 

 firmed the evidence of Mr. Cartledge. 



The defendant, too, was called, and gave his own account 

 of what had happened. He said, after trying the horse, 

 it " grunted " a little, but he did not attach much im- 

 portance to this, knowing that it had been severely exa- 

 mined at the show and had been commended. As to the 

 actual sale, his account was that he had bought the horse 

 after having said to the plaintiff, " I have had no fair trial, 

 but I like him ; and if you will sell him as a sound horse 

 and all right, I will give you £150." 



The learned judge asked the defendant if anything was 

 said about the age of the horse, or being free from vice, 

 and the defendant admitted that these words had not been 

 used in conversation, but said that he had put them into 

 the endorsement because he thought that was the usual form 

 of a warranty. 



The learned judge, in summing up the case, said the 



