ABSOLUTE UNSOUNDNESS. 21 



borough. — It has boen held by very high authority [Sir 

 James Mansfield, C.J.] that roaring is not necessarily un- 

 soundness ; and I entirely concur in that opinion. If the 

 horse emits a loud noise, which is offensive to the ear, 

 merely from a bad habit which he has contracted, or from 

 any cause which does not interfere with his general health 

 or muscular powers, he is still to be considered a sound 

 horse. On the other hand, if the roaring proceeds from 

 any disease or organic infirmity which renders him in- 

 capable of performing the usual functions of a horse, then 

 it does constitute unsoundness." Practically speaking, 

 the distinction made by His Lordship, is of no im- 

 portance ; for what is understood as roaring, or whistling, 

 is not due to any bad habit, and does, in all cases, 

 interfere with the animaFs muscular powers ; and, very 

 frequently, with his general health. 



Onslow V. Eames * (23rd May, 1817).—" Lord Ellen- 

 borough. — If a horse be affected by any malady which 

 renders him less serviceable for a permanency, I have 

 no doubt that it is an unsoundness. I do not go by the 

 noise, but by the disorder." 



Batty V. 8eal\ (Hartlepool County Court, 2nd Nov. 

 1877, before E. J. Meynell, Esq., Judge).— The plaintiff 

 sued the defendant for the balance of the price of a horse, 

 which was sold as sound in wind and limb. Subse- 



* Starkie's Eeports of Cases at Nisi Prius, vol. 2, p. 81. 

 t Veterinarian for 1877, p. 881. 



