324 



where such a stipulation has been made ; it is the 

 case of x\dam v. Richards, 2 H. B. 573, where it is 

 held, that though on the sale of a horse, there is 

 an express warranty by the seller, that the horse 

 is sound, free from vice, &c., yet, if it is accom- 

 panied with an undertaking on the part of the 

 seller to take the horse again, and pay back the 

 purchase money, if, on trial, he shall be found to 

 have any of the defects mentioned in the warranty, 

 the buyer must return the horse as soon as ever he 

 discovers any of those defects, in order to maintain 

 an action on the warranty, unless he has been 

 induced to prolong the trial by any subsequent 

 misrepresentation of the seller ; in such case, the 

 term " trial" means a reasonable trial. 



In this case, six months had elapsed, although 

 vice had been speedily detected. The authority 

 of Fielder v. Starkin, was fully recognized by the 

 court. 



The case of Fielder v. Starkin, to which I have 

 just referred, and to which Lord Tenterden alluded 

 in the case of Street v. Blay, is to be found in H. 

 Blackstone, 17 ; and as it is a leading case, and 

 involves another question of an important practical 

 character, whether it is necessary to give the seller 

 notice of the unsoundness, I shall quote it at length. 



It was held that ^^ where a horse had been sold, 



