548 ACTION AGAIXST AGENT FOR BREACH OF DUTY. 



him another horse from a dealer named Sewell. At the time of the 

 l)urLhase, when trying it, Mr. Wilson was not quite satisfied with the 

 horse's movements, and especially with the contracted shape of the feet, 

 but Mr. Stevens said it was nothing, that the horse was sound and 

 right; and, relying upon that advice, Mr. Wilson bought it for £90. 

 It soon turned out to be a screw, and fell, and broke both its knees, and 

 three veterinary surgeons certified that it was unsound, with contracted 

 feet and diseased eyes of long standing. It was also sent to the de- 

 fendant himself for examination ; and, not remembering that it was the 

 very one he had put upon Mr. Wilson, he. also gave a certificate, which 

 was read, that it was lame and unsound, with diseased eyes, and that 

 these defects were of long standing. The horse was sent to Gower's and 

 sold for £51, Sewell himself being the buyer. 



An action was brought against Sewell on his warranty ; and there- 

 upon Sewell paid the whole difference between the sum he received for 

 the horse, and that at which it had been sold, together with the costs. 

 Mr. Wilson then discovered that, for putting this horse upon him, Mr. 

 Stevens had received from Sewell the sum of £5. The present action 

 was brought for the breach of duty by Stevens in that, having been 

 employed and paid by Mr. Wilson to use his professional skill in the 

 choice of a sound horse for him, he had either negligently or ignorantly 

 bought an unsound one, and for having taken a bribe of £5 for so 

 doing. Mr. Stevens had received £10 for one horse, and £5 for another, 

 at the same time charging Mr. Wilson, as his professional adviser, for 

 buying these horses. Mr. Field's examination (he being ill) was read, 

 where he stated that, from the condition of the horse when he saw it, it 

 must have been in a diseased state five months before, such as any man 

 of ordinary professional skill ought to have detected, and Mr. Mavor 

 and another gentleman gave evidence to the same effect. 



For the defence, it was contended that, as to the first charge, there 

 was proof that eveiy possible endeavour was made to sell the horse; 

 and, as to the second, that it was not proved that the unsoundness had 

 actually existed at the time of the purchase, or could have been then 

 discovered, and also that it was not proved that the horse seen by the 

 veterinary surgeons was actually Sewell's horse, and that the £5 was not 

 a bribe paid at the time, but a present made to Mr. Stevens afterwards 

 for his trouble. Witnesses were then called to prove this, and among 

 them tlie defendant himself, who admitted the receipt of the £10 from 

 Ptice and the £5 from Sewell, but added that he had returned the latter 

 after the action had been settled by Sewell ; and he also said that he 

 did not believe the horse for which he gave the certificate was the same 

 horse he hud bought for Mr. Wilson. Baron Martin told the jury 



