i6o WARRANTY. 



defendant warranted that the sphnt should not 

 grow into lameness. A person buying a horse is 

 often no judge of horses, and may say, ' I don't want 

 to see the defects or blemishes of the horse, as I 

 really know nothing about them. I want and must 

 have a written warranty.' I do not see why this 

 warranty should not be taken thus : ' I show you 

 this splint, and I warrant the horse perfectly soxmd 

 notwithstanding.' It may have been excepted by 

 the warranty, but there is no exception at aU. I 

 think that the defendant is liable on his warranty. 

 This agrees with the decision of Margetson v. 

 Wright. Some splints cause lameness, whereas others 

 do not. A splint, therefore, is not one of those 

 patent defects against which a warranty is inopera- 

 tive." 



Judge Bramwell, in giving judgment in the same 

 case for the plaintiff, looked at the matter upon a 

 wider basis, viz., " that where the warranty is written, 

 it cannot be modified by parole evidence to the effect 

 that the defect existed at the time, and was, there- 

 fore, excluded from the warranty." 



A question arises as to lameness being due to 

 splint. It is an easy matter for anyone to ascribe 

 it to this, but a very different matter to prove that 

 it is the cause. 



