ROARING-. 391 



LEGAL ASPECT OF ROARING AND GRUNTING.—" In prac- 

 tice, roaring is always very properly considered an unsoundness " 

 (Oliphant's " Law of Horses ''). Wo may assume, without the 

 slightest fear of contradiction, that the disease or alteration of 

 structure, of which the noise is a sign, injuriously affects the 

 animal's powers of breathing, and that it consequently impairs 

 his usefulness. 



Bassett v. CoUis (" Campbell's Reports of Cases at Nisi Prius," 

 Vol. 2, p. 523). — "Lord Ellenborough. — It has been held by very 

 high authority (Sir James Mansfield, C.J.), that roaring is not 

 necessarily unsoundness ; and I entirely concur in that opinion. If 

 the horse emits a loud noise, which is offensive to the ear, merely 

 from a bad habit wliich he has contracted, or from any cause which 

 does not interfere with his general health or muscular powers, he 

 is still to be considered a sound horse. On the other hand, if the 

 roaring proceeds from any disease or organic infirmity which 

 renders him incapable of performing the usual functions of a 

 horse, then it does constitute unsoundness." The distinction made 

 by His Lordship, is of no importance; for roaring or whistling 

 is not due to any bad habit ; but in all cases proceeds from a 

 disease or organic infirmity which interferes with the animal's 

 muscular powers, and frequently with his general health. 



Onslow V. Eames (" Starkie's Reports of Cases at Nisi Prius," 

 Vol. 2, p. 81). — "Lord Ellenborough. — If a horse be affected by 

 a malady which renders him less serviceable for a permanency, I 

 have no doubt that it is an unsoundness. I do not go by the 

 noise, but by the disorder." 



Thomas v. Young ("Veterinarian," for 1877, p. 668).— In this 

 case, roaring was held to be an unsoundness, and the jury im- 

 mediately found for the plaintiff, who had, on a warranty of sound- 

 ness, bought a horse which he, subsequently, found out was a 

 roarer. 



In Vallance v. Brook (Windsor County Court, Dec, 1850), the 

 Judge, in summing up, stated that, " roaring was an unsoundness 

 in law." 



The legal aspect of grunting has given rise to much discussion. 

 As far as I can see, the simple fact of a horse being a grunter in 

 no way proves that he is unsound ; for up to the present it has 

 not been demonstrated that grunting is necessarily caused by 

 disease, alteration of structure or malformation. Althoudi it 

 is true that the large majority of grunters are more liable to 

 become roarers than non-grunters, we can no more consider 

 a grunter unsound on that account, than we could condemn as 

 unsound an apparently perfectly healthy horse, because one of 

 his parents was a roarer. If such an extension of liability to 



