OV rUUCHARE AND SALE, ETC. 71 



tliG contract, arising from the splint." TJpon 

 another motion for anotlicr new trial, the Court 

 refused to grant it, holding that though the huyer 

 knew of the splint the jury found the residt, as 

 it turned out, was not apparent to him, and that, 

 therefore, he was protected by the wan-anty of 

 soundness. It is not probable that this end of 

 the case is satisfactory to any one reading it, and 

 who knows anything about horses ; still it is now 

 to be understood as laAV, and has been followed 

 in other cases (./'). And the lessons to be learnt 

 from the case are, that if the owner of a horse, 

 having any patent defect, say a clouded eye or a 

 splint, or spavin, wants to sell it, he should bo 

 carefid not to waiTant the animal, without a 

 memorandum on the waiTanty, if a \mtten one, 

 of such defect, and a statement that he will not 

 be responsible for unsoundness, which may arise 

 from such defect, or proof of such defect being 

 excepted fi'om the warranty, if the warranty be 

 by word of mouth. Speaking as those who must 

 submit to decisions legally made, one must be 

 guided by the case ; but otherwise it would be 

 hard to say what "Wright, the defendant, could 

 have done more than he did to protect himself. 

 lie teUs the buyer of the defect; he sells the 

 horse for less than a fifth of the animal's value, 



(/) BiKterfieldY. Sinrouffhcs, ISalk. 211; Southenicv. IIouc, 

 1 Rolle, 0. 



