54-4 WARRANTY OF " CLEVER HACK.' 



that he is quiet in harness, and do it in sncli a manner as reasonably to 

 make an impression on the mind of the buyer that he is generally quiet 

 in harness, he will be bound by that representation ; and if it is not 

 true, an action will lie to recover bacli the price of the horse. And^^er 

 Curiam : " In this case the defendant, knowing that the witness had 

 been requested to speak to him to give a character of the horse, asserts 

 that he is quiet in harness. That description of the horse is carried on 

 to the plaintiff, who, relying upon it, buys him. Would any man of 

 common sense, to whom that communication was made, understand 

 that the defendant meant to convey an impression that the horse was 

 (jmeralhj quiet in harness, or only that he was quiet the last time he 

 drove him ? " 



Warranti/ of horse heing " a cUvn hack " does not imply that it is 

 sound. — Cleohurij v. Tattersall was brought to recover from the defen- 

 dants, the well-known proprietors of the horse establishment at Hyde 

 Park Corner, the sum of £43, upon an alleged warranty of a horse, 

 purchased by the plaintifp at one of their public sales. It appeared 

 that the plaintiff, a solicitor, was on the 11th May looking over the list 

 of horses entered for sale the following day at Tattersall's. He saw a 

 horse, described in the catalogue as " a bay gelding, a clever hack and 

 hunter," and on the following day he went to the sale, purchased the 

 animal for 21 guineas, and rode it home to his residence at Bayswater, 

 when it " blundered" and stumbled twice during the journey; and on 

 the day after he sent it to Mr. Field, the veterinary surgeon, who 

 examined it, and gave a certificate that it was lame in both its fore-legs. 

 It was then returned to Messrs. Tattersall's, who refused to receive it, on 

 the ground that no warranty of soundness had been given, and that the 

 horse really was what it was described to be — " a clever hack and good 

 hunter." Witnesses were called to prove that the horse was in an 

 unsound state. Blackburn J. said that as a point of law he must 

 certainly rule that the description of the horse as " a clever hack" did 

 not amount to a warranty of soundness ; the only question for the jury 

 was whether, upon all the facts, they considered the horse entitled to be 

 described as "a clever hack." The jury considered that, from the 

 description, the plaintiff had a right to expect something difierent, and 

 they returned a verdict in his favour. A verdict was then taken for the 

 plaintiff, but judgment was stayed, the learned judge giving the defen- 

 dants leave to move to enter a nonsuit, in the event of the Court being 

 of opinion that he was wrong in law in his ruling with regard to the 

 contract. The defendants did not carry the point into a higher court ; 

 and we understand from them that the horse has gone well both as hack 

 and hunter since. 



