LAPSE OF TIME WILL KOT AFFECT FALSE WARRANTY. 573 



chant's work for three months after his resale l^y the plaintiff, and yet 

 had never gone lame. Jervis C.J. put it to the jury that if the lame- 

 ness was produced by the splint the plaintiff was entitled to recover ; 

 but if on the other hand they were of opinion that Mr. Webb was right 

 in supposing the lameness to be caused by want of shoeing, they must 

 find for the defendant. The plaintiff had a verdict for £32 Gs. 9d., 

 being the difference between the original price and the net proceeds of 

 the sale, and for keep during the time he had him. 



According to the rule laid down in Fielder v. Starlcin, no lengili of 

 time elcqjsed after the sale ivill alter the nature of a contract originaJhj 

 false, though the not giving notice is a strong presumptio7i against the 

 huger that the horse had not at the sale the fault complained of. Here 

 the mare was found soon after the sale to be a roarer, in addition to 

 having a thorough-pin, and a swelled hock from kicking ; but the 

 plaintiff kept her three months, and tried to cure her. He then resold 

 her, and she was returned unsound, and defendant refused to receive 

 her baCk at the end of six months, as the plaintiff (who got the ver- 

 dict) had often met him during that time, and never mentioned the 

 matter. On her way back to the plaintiff's stables, after this refusal, 

 she died, and veterinary surgeons thought she had been unsound for a 

 twelvemonth. 



A verdict for the plaintiff, with 30 gs. damages, was confirmed ; and 

 on the authority of this case a new trial was moved for, after a verdict 

 for the defendant, in Adams v. Richards, which was an action on the 

 warranty of a pair of brown coach-horses, to be " perfectly sound, free 

 from blemish, and in no manner vicious, and if on the trial they should 

 have any of the above-mentioned faults to he taken lack and purchase- 

 money returned." Soon after the sale one of them turned vicious and 

 restive, and there was evidence that he was so at the sale. The plain- 

 tiff told the defendant of this, but still kept the horse for a time, in the 

 hopes that he would improve by use. The defendant took his horse 

 back for a time, lending him another to make up the pair, and then sent 

 him the vicious one back with the assurance that it was quite quiet 

 now. On this point, however, the plaintiff differed with him, returned 

 the pair at the end of nearly seven months, and sued defendant for 

 his money. The Court said that they fully assented to the doctrine in 

 Fielder v. Starhin (that where a horse has been sold warranted sound, 

 which, it can be clearly proved, was unsound at the time of sale, the 

 seller is liable to an action on the warranty, witliout either the horse 

 being returned or notice given of the unsoundness). Still ^vltcn tJiere 

 was an agreement to talce a horse lacJc, if on trial lie should be found 

 faulty, though it were accompanied with an express Avarranty, it was 



