302 



Yet, in the following case of Bassett r. Collis, a 

 distinction is drawn, upon the authority of Sir 

 James Mansfield, who certainly was a good sports- 

 man as w^ell as a learned judge, between roaring 

 as a habit f and roaring attended by organic infir- 

 mity. The case just mentioned was prior in 

 point of date, and therefore, Onslow v. Eames is 

 the better authority. On the trial of the latter 

 cause, Mr. Field stated in evidence, that roaring 

 was " occasioned by the neck of the windpipe being 

 too narrow for accelerated respiration.'^ Bassett 

 V. Collis is found in 2 Campbell, 523; the following 

 are Lord Ellenborough's remarks : — 



" It has been held by very high authority, (Sir 

 James Mansfield,) that roaring is not, necessarily, 

 unsoundness ; and I entirely concur in that opinion. 

 If the horse emits a loud noise, which is offensive 

 to the ear, merely from a bad habit which he has 

 contracted, or from any cause which does not 

 interfere with his general health, or muscular 

 powers, he is still to be considered a sound horse. 

 On the other hand, if the roaring proceeds from 

 any disease, or organic infirmity, which renders 

 him incapable of performing the usual functions of 

 a horse, then it does constitute unsoundness. Thd 

 plaintiff has not done enough, in show^ing that this 

 horse was a roarer : to prove a breach of the w^ar- 



