293 



I acknowledge that this definition, though not 

 quite satisfactory to my mind, is more so than any 

 other that I have happened to find. It ought to 

 be recollected, that the domesticated animal is in 



at my omitting to mention that work by name, adds strength to 

 the suspicion. Had I availed myself of Mr. Mavor's opinions and 

 attempted to pass them current as my own, I should have been 

 guilty of great dishonesty ; but this is the first time I ever heard 

 tliat it was not competent to an author to quote the published 

 opinion of another person by name, without subjecting himself to 

 the charge of plagiarism ! 



The fact is, that I received the opinion in the first instance, 

 from a friend, who knowing that I was engaged on the subject of 

 Horse Warranty, thought it would be interesting to me. I under- 

 stood from him that it had been delivered in a court of law, and I 

 have so quoted it above. Long after my work was gone to press, 

 I heard of the Horseman's INIanual for the first time. I read it 

 with attention, and 1 found it badly arranged, very superficial, 

 and what is still worse, inaccurate both in the quotation and 

 construction of cases. I will at present quote but one instance ; 

 the first that occurs to me on opening the book. The author at 

 page 69, cites the case of Fenn v. Harrison, 3 T. R., 757, and 

 puts into Lord Kenyon's mouth an opinion directly opposite to 

 that which his Lordship pronounced; and this, not by any 

 accidental error of the press, but by a correct quotation of the 

 judicial language, and an incorrect application of it to the 

 subject ; thus proving to demonstration that he did not compre- 

 hend what he was writing about ! My object not being to criticise 

 the works of others, but to improve my own, I thought the most 

 charitable course was to omit the notice of a book that I could 

 not quote without censure. I have done the author no injury 



