or rURdlASF, AND SALE, ETC. G9 



an action was brought by tlio buyer of a horse Mametson 

 against the seller on an alleged breach of war- 

 ranty. The facts were these : Margctson, a 

 solicitor, wanted a horse to race, and applied to 

 AVright, a horse dealer, for one ; Wright showed 

 him a horse called " Samson," telling the buyer 

 at the same time that the horse was a crib-biter, 

 and also that it liad had a splint, which had been 

 reduced, but which had thrown the horse out of 

 training. After some bargaining "Wright, tlio 

 seller, took OU/. and a contingent sum of oO/. 

 for the animal, which was admitted to have been 

 worth 500/. if these defects which were disclosed 

 had not existed; but on the buyer submitting 

 a ■wi'itten warranty to him for his signature, in 

 these words : — " And the said Mr. "Wright does 

 hereby warrant the said horse to be sound, wind 

 and limb," — the latter refused to sign it unless 

 the words "at this time" were added after the 

 statement that the horse was sound. With this 

 addition a warranty was, however, given, and 

 the horse was taken away. ]\Iargetson put the 

 horse in training, and at the end of six months 

 " Samson " broke down, whereupon ho brought 

 his action for a breach of warranty, and the jiuy 

 gave him a verdict. A motion for a new trial 

 was made by the defendant, and was granted, 

 and in doing so Chief Justice Tindal laid down 

 some valuable law in relation to dealing in horses 

 where they have patent defects, which, although 



