230 ACTIONS AT LAW. 



In answer to Mr. Rogers : I believe the words in the 

 receipt, respecting the warranty, are a forgery. I paid 

 Mr. Hirons £g4 los., and he gave me £4 back. I saw 

 the blotting paper used directly I had signed the 

 receipt. 



Mr. Hirons : I live at Salford, and am a farmer. The 

 horse in question I bred ; it was coming four years. I had 

 not sold the horse to anyone prior to Mr. Hodges coming 

 to see it. "When he came to see it, he asked me what I 

 should want for the horse. I told him 1 should not sell 

 him for £80. After I got home he again asked the price, 

 and 1 told him ninety guineas, and he said, " That's busi- 

 ness." I refused to warrant the horse to him, on account 

 of the nature of the work he was going to put him to ; 

 if it were going to work on a farm, he would give a war- 

 ranty. Mr. Jeffries then suggested a veterinary examina- 

 tion, and Mr. Hodges named Mr. Tombs, whom I expected 

 would come over. Mr. Jeffries paid me ^^90, I having 

 previously arranged to give him £4 los. 



Mr. Vemey, veterinary surgeon, of Blockley, and Mr. 

 Perkins, veterinary surgeon, of Worcester, both of whom 

 had examined the horse that morning, spoke positively as 

 to the soundness of the horse. There was a congenital 

 enlargement of the pastern bones, which would not inter- 

 fere with the horse's usefulness. 



Mr. Andrew Blake said : On 20th April, I bought the 

 horse in question for Mr. Brassey for £82. He has been 

 regularly used on the farm and roads ; he has been a ready, 

 free worker. I observed no stiffness about his fore-legs. 

 I was offered £^ on the day for the bargain. 



His Honour stated that in the face of the veterinary 

 evidence and that of Mr. Blake, he must give a verdict for 

 the defendant. It was not proved to him that the horse 

 was unsound at the time of sale. 



Plaintiff elected to be non-suited. 



