SALES WITH ENGAGEMENTS CONSIDERED. %-]■] 



to the seller. A man of straw may buy a horse heavily 

 engaged, and from neglect or design refuse to declare the 

 minor or any other forfeits, and put the vendor to an extra, 

 unjust, and vexatious expense, 



A case came under my own observation which I will briefly 

 relate, to show how unfairly the practice operates against the 

 seller : a person who bought a yearling with his engage- 

 ments died, and his executors sold the horse again, on the 

 same conditions, by public auction. The animal was bought 

 by a man who neither struck him out nor run him ; and as no 

 one else had the power to do so, the forfeits were augmented 

 to a serious sum. The executors refusing to pay this, the 

 vendor (the nominator) was bound to do so by the rules of 

 racing. Thus the vendor was deprived of every sort of 

 remedy for the recovery of this unlooked-for outlay. It was 

 equally useless to place on the forfeit list the name of a 

 defunct person, or the names of others who refused to pay or 

 had not the means to do so. Now to enable the vendor at 

 the sale to have what he expects and what he is most justly 

 entitled to, it would be well, I venture to think, if the aggre- 

 gate amount of the smaller forfeits were stated in the con- 

 ditions of sale, and the sum deposited by the buyer in the 

 hands of Messrs. Weatherby before the horse was given up. 

 And in default of payment of these minor forfeits, the horse 

 should be at once put up and resold, the defaulter paying the 

 expenses of the resale and any loss accruing to the original 

 vendor. Such a rule as this would, I think, meet the exigencies 

 of the case. Or it might be made that before the larger forfeit 

 became due — if it were not duly paid, the vendor should have 

 the power of striking the horse out, notwithstanding any 

 conditions to the contrary in the catalogue of sale. 



There is another ground for very general discontent in the 



