2i6 ACTIONS AT LAW. 



Mr. White then addressed the Court for the defence, 

 and drew particular attention to a letter sent by the 

 plaintiff in reply to a communication from the defendant. 

 Plaintiff wrote that he was sorry the bay gelding did not 

 come up to his expectations, but he begged to point out 

 he gave no warranty of soundness, but the animal was 

 described as " a good hunter," a term which was generally 

 considered to mean being sound in wind and eye. The 

 plaintiff seemed to think he was disposing of all liability 

 by simply entering the animal as a " good hunter," but had 

 the animal styled a " good hunter " in order to enhance 

 the price of it. 



Defendant said that he bought the animal for the pur- 

 poses of hunting and a good hunter, but he found it lame. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Lamport, defendant said he did 

 not hunt the animal. He had no opportunity. It had a 

 well-developed side-bone, and was unsafe to jump. 



Mr. Walker, veterinary surgeon, Alton, deposed to being 

 called on to examine the animal, and he found it had a 

 well-developed side-bone in the off fore-foot, and a splint 

 in the near one, and the animal could not be described as a 

 good hunter under those conditions. 



Mr. Redford, veterinary surgeon, who examined the 

 animal on the 27th March, found it lame in both fore-legs. 

 The animal had a fully-developed side bone and a splint, 

 and, consequently, could not be described as a good hunter. 



His Honour gave a verdict for the defendant, remarking 

 that he had no hesitation in sa5dng that the animal was 

 unsound. 



Mr. Lamport asked his Honour for a ruling as to whether 

 defendant was not bound by the conditions. 



His Honour said that defendant must have a reasonable 

 time in which to comply with them. The horse was re- 

 turned by the first train on Monday morning. 



Mr. Lamport said that there might be an appeal. 



