248 ACTIONS AT LAW. 



Mr. Elphick, and on the 30th by another Newcastle 

 veterinary, Mr. Hunter. Both certified that the horse 

 was lame from a splint on tlie near fore leg, which, they 

 considered, must have been there at least two months. 

 On the 20th January the horse was sent to Edinburgh, 

 and examined by Professors Williams and Whalley at the 

 Edinburgh Veterinary College, both of whom were called 

 for plaintiff, and also gave their opinion that the splint 

 was of old standing. All the four veterinary surgeons 

 stated that the horse was spavined on both hocks, and 

 they considered they had been there twelve months. 



Mr. Elphick admitted, on cross-examination, that the 

 horse might yet go sound. Other evidence for plaintiff 

 consisted of his groom ; a friend, Mr. Bell, and his groom, 

 and their evidence went to show that on the 15th and 

 i6th December the horse became very lame. It was 

 admitted that the horse was suffering from an extensive 

 enlargement on the knee of the near fore leg. The horse 

 was produced and shown to the jury. 



For the defence it was admitted that defendant was 

 employed to give his opinion as to the soundness of the 

 horse purchased by plaintiff. He pronounced it to be 

 sound, with an enlargement below the off hock, and an 

 enlargement below the knee on the near fore leg, which, 

 to the best of his judgment, were of no consequence. The 

 horse was not unsound when he examined it, and had no 

 blemish or fault beyond those mentioned. If there was 

 any unsoundness, it was not apparent at the time, and was 

 such that the defendant could not, by the exercise of 

 ordinary diligence and skill as a veterinary surgeon, have 

 discovered it ; and the failure to discover it, if there was 

 failure — which was not admitted — was not negligence on 

 the part of the defendant. He denied that the purchase 

 of the animal was effected on his opinion or certificate 

 as alleged. He was neither asked to give, nor gave, any 



