VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
117 
Mr. Stewart was with him at the time of purchasing her. He heard the 
defendant had a horse to sell, and went to him. Did not immediately see 
him on discovering the real condition of the mare ; was in hopes she might 
get better. Made no application to him before bringing the action. Mr. 
Prebble warranted the mare to be sound. He said nothing about his having 
bought her a year and a- half previous of Mr. Hutchinson at Canterbury, 
and that he warranted her. Did not know much about horses. 
Re-examined : Defendant warranted the mare as sound, and said he bred 
her himself. 
William Hoile , blacksmith, Sandgate said that he was present with the 
plaintiff on the day in question. He heard the conversation between plain- 
tiff and defendant. The defendant warranted the animal to be “ as sound as 
a bell,” and plaintiff asked him to “ throw off” £10, which he refused to do. 
Was sure he heard defendant give the warranty. The mare was sold at 
Ashford market, and realized £7. She was knocked down to him, and he 
bought her in for plaintiff. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox : Defendant did not say he bought her of 
Mr. Hutchinson. 
Mr. W. H. Bullmer, veterinary surgeon, M.R.C.V.S., of Dover, said he 
was called by the plaintiff to examine the mare, and found her suffering from 
hernia. She had suffered from this from her birth, and it caused a swelling 
easily perceptible, under the belly, and it might cause her sudden death at 
any time. The animal was also suffering from chronic disease of her lungs. 
She had had that complaint for a long time previously to her purchase by 
the plaintiff. His observations were corroborated by a post-mortem examina- 
tion of the animal. She was between ten and twelve years of age. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox: The disease might not have been equally 
apparent to an unqualified man, but to any ordinary individual it was 
perceptible. 
Mr. Stewart gave evidence corroborative of the plaintiff’s. 
Mr. Fox said the case involved considerable conflicting evidence. There 
had been no warranty given as to the animal’s age or soundness, and not a 
single question asked in reference to her being diseased. The defendant 
told the plaintiff that he had bought the mare a year and a half before of 
Mr. Hutchinson, at Canterbury, who recommended her to him, and he had 
worked her ever since. Mr. Barton, veterinary surgeon, would speak of the 
condition of the mare at the time he examined her, a short time before she 
was sold. No communication of the discovery of her being diseased was 
made to the defendant until the summons was taken out. His client was a 
most respectable man, and very unlikely to take such advantage of the 
plaintiff as had been represented. 
Mr. Thomas Frehble , the defendant, was then sworn, and said the plain- 
tiff came to him twice, and asked him to sell him the animal, but he refused, 
and he came again the last week in March and asked him to sell her. He 
agreed to do so, and told him he had bought the mare a year and a half ago. 
He said nothing about her being as “ sound as a bell,” or that he would 
warrant her; he simply said, “she was given to me as sound.” He never 
said he bred her himself. She never, to his knowledge, suffered from lung 
disease or from hernia. 
Cross-examined : He did not notice the lump that had been referred to. 
She was kept in the bullock lodge for some time, because there was no 
room in the stables. She was at work during that time. He never received 
a letter from Mr. Minter, nor did his father. 
Michael Prebble, defendant’s father, lived within a mile of his son, and 
had seen the mare nearly every week. Had not noticed that she suffered 
rom lung disease ; nor had he seen the lump under the belly. 
