VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
761 
eluded his observations by stating that they were not likely to give 
a guarantee with the meal, because they knew that such a guarantee 
was not given in the trade. He submitted that it was a case of 
selling flour, and, therefore, no guarantee could be given. 
Mr. Seymour followed with a powerful speech which commanded 
the attention of the court for a considerable time. In the course of 
his remarks, he said it was all very well to talk of other horses, which 
they did not know, doing well on this meal, but there was a 
circumstance to which he hoped they would attach some weight. 
The plaintiff had one animal of remarkable sagacity, and that mare, 
out of twelve, was the only one which was not ill. She had remained 
well because she would not take the food. It had been suggested that 
the animals might have picked up the sand through grazing in the 
fields, but these unfortunate horses did not graze. The theory of 
his learned friend, that the amount of silica found in the meal was 
caused by the horses eating wheat straw, was absolute nonsense, for 
it could not be said that nature had not adapted the system of the 
horse to dispose of such material. They had the most distinct 
proof by the medical witness that there was over 5| per cent, of 
sand and 1 1 per cent, of other impurities in the meal supplied by 
the defendents. In conclusion, he remarked that the agricultural 
world were made the subject of so many extraordinary adulterations, 
whether in rice meal or linseed cake, that those who sold such 
things must be made responsible in some way or other. 
His Lordship, in summing up, first commented upon the question 
of the warranty, and said there was a difference between a commen- 
dation of goods and an express warranty. He should ask them 
also to consider whether the plaintiff knew the rice meal was fit for 
food ; on this point the evidence was of a singularly conflicting 
character. He considered the remarks of the learned counsel on 
the resistance offered to the defendants, in their effort to obtain a 
sample for examination as well founded, and he thought that the 
plaintiff was ill-advised in not affording that assistance. As to the 
condition of the rice meal that some sand might have been con- 
tained in it seemed to be generally agreed. It had been suggested 
that the stones used in the mill might have created it, but several 
witnesses said that only half a pound could be found in a pack, and 
this would not in any way account for the quantity found. He con- 
fessed that he was unable to point to any satisfactory conclusion as 
to where the quantity of sand came from. That it was put in 
purposely could not be maintained for a moment. Supposing it 
were not in the rice meal, how did it get into the horses’ intestines. 
He thought that the evidence of Mr. Bower was of importance on 
this question, as he fed his horses out of the same lot. The sug- 
gestion that the sand was produced from the wheat straw might be 
dismissed. As to the horses getting the sand by grazing, that 
might be done on a sandy soil, where the grass was thin ; but that 
was not the case here. 
He expressed an opinion that no satisfactory explanation had 
been given of the variation in the amount of the claim, and it 
