598 SELLING GLANDERED HORSE. 



on the previous transaction." The Court held that there was evidence 

 of a joint conversion, and discharged a rule to enter a nonsuit or a 

 verdict for the defendant. 



The 16 & 17 Vicf. c. 62 (which was continued by 19 & 20 Vicl. c. 101), 

 inflicts by sec. 1 a £20 penalty on anyone " bringing or attempting to 

 bring for sale any horse or other animal into any market, fair, or other 

 open or public place, where animals are commonly exposed for sale, 

 knowing such horse or other animal to be affected with or labouring 

 vnder the disease called glanders," or " turning, keeping, or depasturing 

 any horse or other animal infected with or labouring under such disease 

 in or upon any forest, chase, wood, moor, marsh, heath, common, waste 

 land, open field, road side, or other undivided or uninclosed land." A 

 question arose, in Hill v. Balls, on the meaning of "puilic jjZace " in 

 this act. The declaration stated that the defendant was possessed of a 

 glandered horse, and knowing it had such disease caused it to be sold 

 by auction at a Horse Repository, and the plaintifl' believing it to be 

 healthy bought it at the sale and paid for it. It was utterly worthless 

 from disease, and the plaintiff not only paid a veterinary surgeon to 

 examine it, but it mortally infected another horse of his in the same 

 stable, and the plaintiff paid a large sum of money in endeavouring to 

 cure the infected horse. It was held that no cause of action was dis- 

 closed, since the declaration not being founded on any fraudulent mis- 

 representation or breach of warranty did not show that the defendant 

 liad committed an illegal act, for although by the statute the bringing 

 or attempting to bring for sale a horse " into any market, fair, or any 

 other open or public place," knowing it to be infected with the glanders, 

 is made an offence, yet a horse repository is not necessarily a " public 

 ]>lace" within the meaning of the statute, and it was not stated to be 

 huch a place. 



The subject of a conspiracy to cheat was considered in Rex v. Pywell. 

 The defendant Pywell advertised the sale of horses, which he undertook 

 to warrant. General Maclean, on application at his stables, saw 

 another of the defendants, who said he had lived with the owner of the 

 liorse, knew it well, and would warrant it sound. The horse was 

 Ijought with a warranty for 50gs.., and turned out worthless before the 

 week for returning was expired. Lord Ellenborough C.J. stopped the 

 case, and said " that if this was to be considered an indictable offence, 

 then instead of all the actions which had been brought .on warranties, 

 the defendants ought to have been indicted as cheats, and that no 

 indictment could be maintained in a case like this, without evidence of 

 a concert between the parties to effectuate a fraud." 



This case was followed by Reg, v. Kenriclc, which was an indictment 



