332 



ately discovered. Some evidence was given to show 

 that the defendant knew of it, and the horse was 

 shown at the sale under circumstances favourable 

 for concealing it. After a verdict for the plaintiff, 

 it was held that there was sufficient proof of the 

 plaintiff's having had notice of the rules at the time 

 of the sale, to render them binding on him ; also, 

 that the rule in question was such as a seller might 

 reasonably impose, and that the facts did not show 

 such fraud or artifice in him as would render the 

 condition inoperative. 



The unsoundness consisted of inflammation of 

 the navicular joint, which of course would be less 

 perceptible on the soft ground, on which it appeared 

 that the horse was shown. 



While I am on the subject of auctions, I may 

 allude to the importance of not being misled by anj 

 casual remarks of the auctioneer, or verbal assur- 

 ances at variance with the printed conditions of sale. 

 The case of Gunnis v, Erhart, 1 H. Bl. 289, is an 

 authority on this point, though the property sold had 

 no connexion with horse-flesh — it was a copyhold 

 estate. 



The principle upon which auctions must be con- 

 ducted, has very little to do with the subject of horse 

 warranties ; yet, as they constitute the principal 

 market for horses, I shall refer to one or two cases: 



