OF rURCII,\RE AND SALE, ETC. 81 



•\vhieli ho is pretty certain a veterinary surgeon 

 ■will pronoimeo unsoundness, and wliicli ho says 

 nothing about at the time of sale. In this par- 

 ticular, it is probable, tliat the present method 

 of trying horse cases is unsatisfactory, and that 

 it should be a question of fact in an action for 

 breach of warranty when brought by a dealer. 

 Did he know, or ought he to have known, that 

 there were diseases and defects on the horse he 

 was buying, — premonitory, at all events, of un- 

 soundness y If he did, he should be bound by 

 them, and this would often prevent those frauds 

 above alluded to and complained of, where horse 

 dealers get possession of horses ^\'itll Avarranties, 

 and then, unless they get a purchaser, thi-eaten 

 to return them to the breeder, and so obtain 

 either an abatement in the price, or some other 

 equivalent. 



What patent defect can be more apparent to a Advan- 

 horse dealer than incipient broken vdnd ? Yet horse 

 nine out of ten ordinary buyers, such as farmers, umie" 

 would not know if a horse was, or was not affected prescut 



law. 



with such an ailment in its early stages. Where 

 a horse dealer takes a warranty, why should he 

 recover on an action if the breach is alleged to be 

 some defect or ailment which, in the ordinary 

 course of his business, he must have kno-s\Ti and 

 observed Y The cases in the law books, however, 

 are in his favour. A distinction would seem to 

 be dra'WTi between defects which are manifest to 



L. G 



