307 



London had coughs ; still Lord Ellenborough said 

 it was a breach of the warranty. It w as further 

 contended, that the plaintiff was told that the horse 

 had been used only on the road, and had a cough, 

 and that by hunting it he had aggravated the 

 disease. 



Lord Ellenborough : " Knowledge makes no 

 difference. There was a case before Mr. Justice 

 Lawrence, in w^hich it was held ; and it was there 

 said that the plaintiff might rely on the warranty 

 only, and not choose to trust to his ow'n know- 

 ledge," "There is no proof that he would have 

 got well, if he had not been hunted." 



Sphnts are, as I have elsewhere observed, of 

 very equivocal importance ; but I entertain no 

 doubt whatever in my own mind, but that they 

 amount to unsoundness, if they are, either from 

 their location, or their size, likely to impede the 

 action of the tendons. The only case that I can 

 find upon the subject is the following : — 



Margetson v. Wright, 8 Bingham 454, where it 

 is held, that as some splents cause lameness, w^hile 

 others do not, a splent is not one of those patent 

 defects against which a warranty is inoperative ; and 

 also that the defendant having warranted a horse 

 sound at the time of the contract^ and the horse 

 having; afterwards become lame from the efiects of 

 x2 



