ACTIONS AT LAW. 245 



been sold by plaintiff, who should then have brought an 

 action to recover the difference. He quoted cases. 



His Honour overruled the point. 



Mr. Comer then opened the case for the defence, con- 

 tending that everything had been done straightforwardly. 



Defendant stated that he had worked the horse for two 

 years in all gears, and had always found him satisfactory. 

 Plaintiff had every opportunity of examining the horse. 

 Plaintiff asked him to have it " vetted.," which he declined 

 to do, and said he would take it as it stood. He never 

 asked for a written warranty, nor did he say he could take 

 his word as a gentleman that it was sound and a good 

 worker. 



Cross-examined : Mr. Button might have told him that 

 the horse had the shivers. Mr. Prosser had the horse and 

 returned it. He (defendant) bought the horse at Hanley 

 Court as a " crabbed " one. 



William Mould, waggoner to Sir Joseph Pulley, said he 

 was formerly waggoner for Mr. Wall, Hanley Court. Whilst 

 there he broke this horse in. It was an excellent worker. 

 He never had any difficulty in backing him. 



His Honour pointed out that the defendant himself 

 had practically stated that he bought it knowing it had 

 the shivers. 



Mr. Barling, veterinary surgeon, said he examined the 

 horse at the request of Mr. Garrold, on behalf of plaintiff, 

 but was not called by him as a witness. The horse was a 

 shiverer. It might, however, do good work, although 

 sometimes with a little inconvenience to itself. In cases 

 of horse dispute, the animal was always sold, and the 

 difference sued for. 



Cross-examined : The horse was unsound. The disease 

 of shivering was one that, as a rule, got worse. 



Mr. Carless, veterinary surgeon, said he agreed with Mr. 

 Barling. 



