01 -Z 



SPLINTS CAUSING UNSOUNDNESS. 



sinews, and produced inflammation and consequent lameness when- 

 ever the horse worked. Vaughan B. requested the jury to tell him 

 distinctly whether in their judgment the horse was sound ; or if un- 

 sound, whether the unsoundness arose from the splint. They said 

 " that although the horse exhibited no symptoms of lameness when 

 the contract was made, he had upon him the seeds of unsound- 

 ness, arising from the splint ; " and they accordingly found for the 

 plaintiff. 



On a motion for a new trial, the Court of Common Pleas ordered the 

 postea to be delivered to the plaintiff. Timhl C.J. said : " The jury 

 drawing tlicir attention to the particular splint to which the evidence 

 related, appear to us to have intended that this individual sjjlinf, though 

 it did not at the moment produce lameness, was at the time of the con- 

 tract of that sort and in that situation as to contain, in their language, 

 the seeds of unsoundness that is the efficient cause of subsequent lame- 

 ness. If the lameness complained of had proceeded from a new or 

 different splint, or from the old splint taking a new direction in its 

 growth so as to affect a sinew, not having pressed on one before, such 

 a lameness would not have been within the warranty, for it would not 

 have constituted a present unsoundness at the time of the warranty 

 made. But the jury find that the very splint in question is the efficient 

 cause of lameness ; and it appears by the fresh evidence that some 

 splints cause lameness and that others do not, and that the conse- 

 quences of a splint cannot be apparent at the time like the loss of an 

 eye or any visible blemish or defect to a common observer. We there- 

 fore think that by the terms of ar written warranty the parties meant 

 that this was not a splint at that time which would be the cause of 

 future lameness, and that the juiy have found it was. We therefore 

 think that the warranty was broken." 



In Warlon v. Floirers the horse had a splint on the near front leg at 

 the time of the sale, but after some examination a warranty of sound- 

 ness was given. At the end of ten days the horse went lame, and on 

 examination of his feet and legs by Professor Spooner, who had the 

 shoes taken off, that gentleman gave it as his opinion that the lame- 

 ness proceeded from the splint, and was of some months' standing. 

 Mr. Webb, Y.8., who was sent to look at the horse by the defendant, 

 maintained that the horse wanted shoeing, and that his lameness was 

 caused Ijy the .growth of his hoofs, by which his heels were let down 

 and his navicular joint bruised on the pavement. The defendant, on 

 hearing this, refused to take him back, and brought evidence on the 

 trial to show that he had worked 18 miles a-day with the splint in the 

 Epping Coach before the plaintiff had him, and done a potato mer- 



