loO HORSE ^V A UK AMY. 



601110 time or other. In liroicn v. Elhimjton {c), the 

 jtlaiiitifr Lroiiglit an action for breach of warranty 

 on the ground that at the time of sale he ohjoctod 

 to the horse's hocks as weak and as likely to throw 

 out curbs. There was no special warranty given 

 by the defendant, but a general warranty was 

 admitted. A few days after the sale the horso 

 threw out a curb ; there was no allegation of 

 lameness, but the plaintiff relied on the scientific 

 evidence of veterinary siu'geons that curbs arc un- 

 Bad .shape sounducss. Tho judgc, in summing up, told the 

 soimducss. jury " that a defect in the form of a horse at tho 

 time of sale, although it might render the horso 

 more liable to become lame at some future time, 

 was not a broach of warranty;" and on a now trial 

 being applied fur on the gnnind of misdirection, 

 tho court refused to grant it, and quoted Dickenson 

 V. Follvtt ( /'), the judgment in wliioh laid down 

 that badness of shape was not unsoundness, so 

 long as it was badness of shape only ; where tho 

 shape produced an injury, then, and not till then, 

 was the horse unsound. 



This brings us to another defect in a horse caused 

 by malformation, namely, cutting or hrnshiny the 

 fetlock joint of one leg by tho shoo or foot of tho 

 other. Tliis is soinotinios caused by bad shoeing. 

 The writer will never forget tho satisfaction of a 

 country smith on its being shown to him that if ho 



(f) 8 M. i: W. 132. (/) 1 .AI. \: K. 299. 



