568 COUGH OF PERMANENT NATURE UNSOUNDNESS. 



having continued liealthy. Witness stated that it was an hereditary 

 disease, arising from lireediug " in and in, or from relations " — tliat 

 sheep so disordered would tlu-ive and seem to be in sound health gen- 

 erally until two or three years old — that there was no means of dis- 

 covering by the appearance or otherwise that sheep were so affected — 

 that it was generally fatal, and no cure or prevention known for it, and 

 was reputed amongst farmers an unsoundness. The evidence for the 

 defendant went to show that the sheep were of a pedigree free from 

 " breeding in and in," and that others of the same sort and older were 

 perfectly sound. The warranty was proved without dispute, and the 

 sheep were all of the same breed. For the defendant it was contended 

 that the sheep having been thriving and healthy at the time and for 

 two months after the sale, must be considered as sound at that time ; 

 that, inasmuch as there were no previous symptoms to connect the 

 disease of which they died with their former state of health, there was 

 nothing to show that the disease existed at the time of the sale ; and 

 that an hereditary liability to a particular disorder was of too uncertain 

 a nature to be capable of proof, and could not be legally considered as 

 an unsoundness existing at the time stipulated for in the warranty. 

 Ahlott C.J. left it to the jury to say whether at the time of the sale the 

 sheep had existing in their blood or constitution the disease of which 

 they afterwards died, or whether it had arisen from any subsequent 

 cause. The verdict was for the plaintiff for £120, the value of the 

 sheep which had died, and the defendant agreed to take back the 

 remainder. 



It was laid down by Lord Ellenlorough C.J., in Shillitoe v. Claridge, 

 that if a liorso lias a covgh of a permanent 7iature, he is unsound, and 

 *• such has, I believe, always been the understanding both in the pro- 

 fession and amongst veterinary surgeons. On the counsel (subse- 

 quently Mr. Justice Williams) remarking that "at present at least two- 

 thirds of the horses in London have coughs," his lordship rejoined, 

 " Be it so ; but still it is a breach of the warranty." Lord Mansfield 

 C.J. held that roaring was not necessarily an unsoundness ; and in 

 Basseit v. ColUs a somewhat strained distinction was drawn by Lord 

 Ellenhorovgh C.J. between roaring which proceeded merely from a bad 

 habit, producing a noise offensive to the car, and thot which is the 

 result of any disease or organic infirmity. However, in a later case of 

 Onslow V. Eam/'S, after hearing the evidence of Mr. Field, Y.S., to the 

 effect that roaring is occasioned by the circumstance of the neck of the 

 windpipe being too narrow for accelerated respiration, and that the dis- 

 order is often prodnred by sore throat or other topical inflammation, 

 and incommodes him when pushed to his full speed, his lordship said, 



