EELATIVE UNSOUNDNESS. 45 



was an action upon a warranty, in which the defendant 

 warranted the horse to be sound in wind and limb * at 

 the time/ that is, at the time of the warranty made. 

 The jury at the trial found a verdict for the plaintiff; 

 the learned Judge requesting them to tell him distinctly 

 whether in their judgment the horse was sound ; or, if 

 they believed him to be unsound, whether that un- 

 soundness arose from the splint of which evidence had 

 been given. In answer to which inquiry, the jury said, 

 'that, although the horse exhibited no symptoms of 

 lameness at the time when the contract was made, he 

 had then upon him the seeds of unsoundness arising 

 from the splint.' 



" The question upon this application for a new trial, 

 is, whether this finding of the jury sanctions the verdict 

 for the plaintiff or not ; that is, whether the Court can 

 see with sufficient clearness that the jury thought that 

 the horse was unsound at the time of the contract, and, 

 consequently, that the warranty was broken. It appears 

 that the evidence before the jury was, in substance, that 

 the splint might or might not be the efficient cause of 

 lameness, according to the position which it occupied, 

 and its size and extent ; that this splint was in a very 

 bad situation, as it pressed upon one of the sinews, and 

 would naturally produce, when the horse was worked, 

 inflammation of the sinew, and consequent lameness. The 

 jury, therefore, drawing their attention to this particular 



