VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
119 
and Mr. Sabin, and obtained a certificate from them. Witness wrote to the 
defendant on the 26th of September, informing him that Mr. Newman had 
returned the mare as only four years old, and unsound, from an enlargement 
on the off knee. He had no wish to return her, if it could be settled in any 
way. He was willing to take £20 and keep her to sell at five years. De- 
fendant replied that he was surprised to receive such a letter, being sure 
that the mare was sound when she left his hands, and five years old. If the 
unsoundness was ocularly proved to his satisfaction, he would send back a 
cheque. The mare was afterwards sold by auction, and bought by the 
defendant for £63. 
Cross-examined. — He had nothing to say against the defendant, and had 
expressed in one of his letters a willingness to deal with him again. He 
looked at the mare, and probably put his hand over her fore legs. He was 
sure he did not say, “ There’s a small splint, but I don’t object to it.” The 
next day he saw the mare run out to see if she was sound. Mr. Newman 
gave £95 for the mare. The mare was not used while he had her, having 
been kept in the stable with a cough. Mr. Newman did not find out the 
defect in the knee ; it was pointed out to him when he was showing her on 
sale. One could not help seeing it if he looked strictly. He had returned 
horses before, and recovered. 
Mr. Newman confirmed the part of the plaintiff’s case in which he was 
concerned. In cross-examination, he said he did not examine the mare’s 
mouth, nor notice her off knee. 
Mr. Charles Hamlin Wadlow , veterinary surgeon, of Oxford, said he had 
had thirty-six years’ experience. He examined the mare on the 4th of 
October. She was four years old last May. The off knee was larger than 
the near one, there being a bony deposit on the outside and inside, close to 
the knee-joint. It arose from inflammation produced by concussion, and 
was very likely to produce lameness with work. Defect of that kind par- 
ticularly constituted unsoundness. There was a splint on the other fore 
leg. The enlargement must have existed on the 9 th of August and for some 
time before. 
Cross-examined — An old horse with a confirmed splint in a place not likely 
to interfere with the tendons might work sound. He would not say eight 
out of ten horses had splints ; a great number had and went sound. 
Mr. William Thomas Sabin , veterinary surgeon, of Oxford, also examined 
the mare on the 6th of October, and was of the same opinion as the former 
witness. The forefeet were of a suspicious appearance. 
Cross-examined. — A bony deposit of the character he examined could not 
be thrown out in a fortnight. 
Mr. John Green , managing clerk to Mr. John Fisher, auctioneer, proved 
the sale by auction; Mr. Hadland purchased it for £63. 
The defendant’s advocate contended that the enlargement of the knee- 
joint must have been apparent to the defendant, almost as much as in the 
well-known cases of the horse without an ear, and the horse without a tail. 
The splint was common enough in horses, and in this as in other cases was 
no detriment. 
The defendant said the plaintiff was introduced by Mr. Malton, of Hull, 
and in his presence examined the mare ; passing his hand down the legs, he 
observed that there was a slight splint, but he did not object to that. He 
had never had a warranted horse returned before. After repurchasing the 
mare he could see the splint on the knee, but nothing to render the mare 
unsound. He had her examined by a veterinary surgeon. 
Mr. Peter Malton said he saw Mr. Tollit examine the horse on the 
9th of August. He said something about a splint, but witness did not catch 
the exact words. 
