PHYSICKING HIRED HORSE. 575 



Avhereas a liirer or borrower may reasonably be taken to represent to the 

 party who lets, or from whom he borrows, that he is a person of com- 

 petent skill." But j;^r Coleridge J. : " Would it not be monstrous to 

 hold that if the owner of a horse, knowing it to be vicious and un- 

 manageable, should lend it to one who is ignorant of its bad quality, 

 and conceal this from him, and the rider — using ordinary care and 

 skill — is thrown from it and injured, he should not be responsible?" 

 (BlacJcmore (adx.) v. The Bristol and Exeter Railwcuj Company). 



The defendant in Curtis v. Hannay had learnt the day after the sale 

 that the horse had defective eyes at the time he bought him, lut Icept him 

 seven iveeks before he returned him, and said nothing. During that time 

 he gave him medicine and blistered him for a fancied defect in the feet, 

 ivhkh produced a thrush and lameness. The latter was only temporary, 

 and the horse got better, and those remedies did not affect the eyes. 

 Under these circumstances Lord Eldon C.B. said that the question was, 

 " Would the horse, when .returned to the seller, be diminished in value 

 by this doctoring ? If he would, the defendant should pay the price, 

 and bring his action against tiie seller for any defect in the warranty 

 existing at the time of the sale. He took it to be clear law that if a 

 person purchases a horse which is warranted, and it afterwards turns 

 out that the horse was unsound at the time of the warranty, the buyer 

 might if he pleased keep the horse and bring an action on the warranty 

 in which case he would have a right to recover the difference between 

 the value of a sound horse and one with such defects as existed at the 

 time of the warranty ; or he might return the horse, and bring an 

 action to recover the full money paid ; but in the latter case the seller 

 had a right to expect that the horse should be returned in the same 

 state he was when sold, and not by any means diminished in value." 

 The jury found for the full price, as they seemed to think that a future 

 purchaser would think less of the horse if he heard that he had been 

 blistered and doctored. 



If a horse is taken ill on a journey, ivithout any fault in the hirer, the 

 owner has to pay the expense of its cure ; but if the hirer takes upon himself 

 to prescribe medicines, and the horse dies, he is liable for the price of it. 

 And so it was ruled in Dean v. Keate, where the defendant gave the 

 horse some medicine, mild in itself, and then drove him very quick in 

 rough weather, producing thereby inflammation of the intestines, which 

 he treated with opium and ginger, and then when he found the horse 

 dying in great pain sent for the ftirrier too late. Lord Ellenborovgh 

 C.J. said, had he called in a farrier he would not have been liable for 

 the medicines he administered ; but when he prescribed himself, he 

 assumed a new degree of responsibility, and in prescribing so improperly 



