314 



hend, that the "experience" of this gentleman 

 would have been doubted at the Veterinary Colleo-e. 

 The case however, deserves attention, because the 

 defendant's complaint that he was taken by sur- 

 prise by such a defence, was answered by an inti- 

 mation, that he might have acquired a knowledge 

 of the unsoundness on which the purchaser rehed, 

 by applying to a judge at chambers. 



The case of Dickinson v. Follett, 1 Moody and 

 Robinson, 199, tried at Exeter, is an important 

 case upon a question of soundness of rare occur- 

 rence. " Mere badness of shape, though render- 

 ing the horse incapable of work, is not unsound^ 

 ness." This marginal note, however, by no means 

 gives a correct idea of the decision. It appears 

 from the report that the horse's action was so 

 defective, that in work he cut himself before, or 

 interfered, as it is called. It was contended for 

 the plaintiff, and in my opinion correctly, that this 

 malformation constituted unsoundness, although at 

 the time of sale there might exist neither lameness 

 nor wound. Mr. Justice Alderson however drew a 

 distinction rather too fine for any body but a 

 lawyer : — " The horse could not be considered un- 

 sound in law, merely from badness of shape. As 

 long as he was uninjured, he must be considered 

 sound. When the injury is produced by the bad- 



