ACTIONS AT LAW. 199 



burden of proof rested on the defendant. If the horse was 

 sound at the time of sale, their verdict must be for the 

 plaintiff ; but if it was unsound, and, being unsound, there 

 was a warranty by the plaintiff that it was sound, their 

 verdict would be for the defendant. 



The jury immediately found for the plaintiff, and his 

 lordship gave judgment for £150, less the sum paid into 

 Court. 



[Note. — The verdict in this case was the only one that 

 a jury could reasonably give. In the first place, the 

 endorsement upon the cheque by the defendant could only 

 constitute a warranty after sale, and as such was void. 

 Moreover, a buyer cannot warrant the soundness of his 

 purchase without the consent of the vendor. The jury 

 were obviously of opinion that no real warranty had, in 

 spite of the expert evidence, been given by the plaintiff.] 



Palmer v. Cannon. 



SHYING " — BREACH OF WARRANTY. 



This action was brought to recover sixty guineas for a 

 breach of warranty of a horse, which, it was allowed, the 

 defendant had represented to be " quiet to ride and drive, 

 and free from vice, and not to crib-bite." 



Mr. Edlin stated the case. The plaintiff, he said, was 

 a magistrate and the defendant a farmer and auc- 

 tioneer, residing near Chippenham. Towards the end of 

 last year, Mr. Palmer was in want of a horse, and a horse 

 dealer, named Clark, living at Melksham, informed him 

 that Mr. Cannon had one that would exactly suit him. The 

 plaintiff thereupon wrote to the defendant, stating that he 

 would come over with his coachman to see the animal. 

 The defendant replied that he knew nothing about coach- 

 men, but that he should be happy to show the horse to the 



