34 WARRANTY. 



that it is the other's roguery ^ might, we think, be 

 an argument of greater cogency the other way, 

 unless knaves in this country are to be regarded 

 with peculiar favour, like idiots in Turkey; but 

 we apprehend that this rule, if any such indeed 

 exist, is one of presumption only, it being inferred 

 that both parties meant to exclude the particular 

 defect from the warranty. The case of Shillitoe 

 V. Claridge, however, goes far towards disproving 

 the existence of such a rule.* 



" Let us now consider how the rights of the 

 parties are affected by the horse being unsound 



" Shillitce V. Claridge, -where the horse had a cough at 

 the time of the sale, it appeared that he had been bled for it 

 before he was sold, and there was no evidence of any mis- 

 management by the buyer ; and it appeared he was told that 

 the horse had a cough, and was used only to the road, and 

 that he had sent him to the hunt. Lord EUenborough : ' If 

 it had the cough, and it was of a permanent nature, I have 

 always held that it was a breach of the warranty ; and such 

 has, I believe, been the understanding both in the profession 

 and amongst veterinary surgeons. On that understanding 

 I have always acted, and think it quite right. Knowledge 

 makes no difference. There was a case before Mr. J. Law- 

 rence in which it was held, and it was there said, that the 

 plaintiff might rely upon the warranty only, and not choose 

 to trust to his own knowledge. I have ahvays understood 

 that a cough is an unsoundness ; the horse then was unsound 

 when he was bought, and there was no proof of any discon- 

 tinuance of that unsoundness, or that he would have got 

 j^rell if be had not been hunted.' " 



