240 WARRANTY V. VETERINARY EXAMINATION. 



alone, requests him to take back the horse, and remit 

 him the whole of the purchase-money. 



Now, in my opinion, no man of honour or principle 

 would be guilty of such a manifest breach of faith as this. 



He purchases the horse warranted sound, by the 

 seller who gives the warranty bona fide, because he has 

 proved him to be sound from repeated trials while in 

 his possession. And, therefore, until the horse be- 

 comes unsound, either from lameness, roaring, whis- 

 tling, ophthalmia, or any other cause, which palpably 

 must have existed at the time of sale, it is a manifest 

 breach of faith to impugn the correctness of the war- 

 ranty, by calling in the veterinary surgeon to examine 

 him ; for the horse being sold under a warranty cannot 

 mean being sold under, or subject to the opinion of the 

 veterinary surgeon by any trifling with words. 



If a warranty means anything at all it means that 

 the horse is to be considered sound without the opinion 

 of the veterinary surgeon until he prove otherwise. 



No man is likely to be so foolish as to sell a horse 

 to such a man on the same terms again. Or, if he 

 does, he will most probably run a risk, and sell him a 

 horse he knows to be unsound, which he hopes may 

 pass the ordeal of a veterinary examination. And it 

 frequently happens that the horse, though notably un- 

 sound from some hidden ailment, does pass this exami- 

 nation ; and thereby he is tempted to do the same 

 thing again. 



I have frequently known this done by sellers of 

 horses as a set-off for previous breaches of faith. 



