ACTIONS AT LAW. 231 



■• Messent v. Rea. 



WARRANTY — " WIND-SUCKING " UNSOUNDNESS, NOT MERELY 

 A VICE. 



The plaintiff, a gentleman residing in London, sought, 

 by this action, to recover compensation from a horse dealer 

 carr\dng on business in Southwark, in respect of the alleged 

 unsoundness of a horse which he had purchased from the 

 defendant, with a warranty, for eighty guineas. 



The plaintiff alleged that after he had received the horse 

 he found that it shied ; that it had lop-ears, which were 

 supported by an artificial arrangement of elastic bands ; 

 that its teeth were " bishoped " ; that it made " grimaces " 

 and was a "wind-sucker," and that it suffered from 

 incipient bUndness. The defendant denied that he had 

 warranted the horse or that it suffered from the alleged 

 unsoundness. 



Mr. Philbrick, Q.C., and Mr. Anderson appeared for the 

 plaintiff, and Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Fullerton 

 represented the defendant. 



The following summary of the trial contains the salient 

 points of the evidence adduced on both sides. 



The plaintiff, Mr. Messent, stated in his examination 

 that the previous June he had complained to defendant of 

 horses previously purchased of him, and that about the end 

 of that month the defendant called on him and stated he 

 had purchased a very nice bay horse, which he could recom- 

 mend, and that it would make amends for the other 

 purchases. He could warrant this one ; indeed, it was the 

 best horse he had ever had, and that he would take the 

 low price of eighty guineas for it. The defendant left the 

 horse, although the plaintiff demurred, as his stable was 



