506 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Lymington, Hants, then stated that he purchased the horse 
at the bazaar for £32, and had it now in his possession. He 
had ridden him occasionally and driven him regularly, and 
used him in the plough, and had never found him have the 
slightest lameness. 
The verdict was then given for the defendant. 
Downpatrick Assizes, Saturday', July £3. 
(Before Sergeant Howley.) 
Magennis v. Hunter. 
Mr. Perrin opened the pleadings. This was an action of 
assumpsit , for a breach of warranty in a horse sold by the 
defendant to the plaintiff. The declaration contained four 
counts. Damages were laid at £1000, and defendant pleaded 
the general issue. 
Mr. Andrews , Q.C., stated the case. The plaintiff in this 
case was a gentleman named Roger Magennis, and the 
defendant a gentleman, named James Hunter, both of whom 
resided in the county of Down, and were persons of consi- 
derable respectability. The plaintiff was a magistrate, living 
at a place called Ballela, and he and the defendant had been 
on intimate terms with each other; but, unfortunately, he 
came now into Court to claim damages for what was called a 
“ breach of warranty” in the sale of a horse. The sale w r as in 
the nature of an exchange, giving the difference, and took 
place at the June fair of Banbridge, in 185£. Mr. Andrews 
then described the terms of the sale, which will fully appear 
in the evidence ; and proceeded to say that, the day after the 
bargain, Mr. Magennis’s servant discovered, on examining the 
horse, a number of pimples between his legs and a lump on 
the breast. On the following day, other lumps made their 
appearance on the off-side of the neck, and subsequently more 
were seen. The horse became very unwell, and it was found 
he had button farcy , which ultimately turned into glanders, of 
which he died. Four other horses which Mr. Magennis had, 
subsequently took glanders, and he was obliged to shoot them. 
But his loss did not end there. He was also obliged to 
destroy a considerable quantity of harness, as it could not 
again be used ; besides other losses which it w r as now unne- 
cessary for him (Mr. Andrews) to mention. Mr. Andrews 
concluded by saying that the only question which the jury 
would have to determine were, whether there was a warranty 
