214 ACTIONS AT LAW. 



tiable security, which was endorsed by the auctioneers in 

 favour of the vendor, the proper course for the defendant 

 to have taken, if he thought there was any breach of 

 warranty, was to have given the usual notice, had the 

 horse re-sold, and sued the vendor for any damages sus- 

 tained, and he should have done that within the time 

 mentioned in the conditions of sale. Coming to the more 

 important point, he (Mr. Lamport) contended there had 

 been no breach of warranty, and he thought he should be 

 able to prove satisfactorily to his Honour that there had 

 been no misrepresentation in regard to the animal in 

 question. 



Frederick Styles Ring (Messrs. Perkins and Sons) testified 

 as to the sale of the animal. 



Cross-examined by Mr. White, witness admitted the 

 receipt, on the Monday afternoon, after the sale at four 

 o'clock, of a communication from defendant, enclosing a 

 veterinary surgeon's certificate, but the animal reached 

 them at twelve o'clock the same day. 



Plaintiff said he bought the animal in 1892 and hunted it, 

 and in the summer it was turned out. His groom hunted 

 it in January. 



Cross-examined by Mr. White, witness admitted that 

 he only hunted the animal once last season, but he had seen 

 the animal hunted. 



Robert Smith, groom to the plaintiff, said he had hunted 

 the animal in question several times. The animal hunted 

 very well. 



Cross-examined by Mr. White, witness said that he used 

 to ride the animal daily. He had hunted it three times 

 this season. 



Mr. Stanley Pearce, Master of the New Forest Hounds, 

 said he had seen the horse in question hunting at their 

 meet. It was a good hunter, and, in his opinion, would 

 do a good day's hunting. His definition of a good hunter 



