512 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. Meade . — No ; it is merely to show that Mr. Magen- 
nis’s recollection is not very perfect in the matter. 
In cross-examination by Mr. O' Hagan, Q.C., Mr. Hunter 
said he did not think he escaped an injury by getting rid of 
the horse; Mr. Magennis did not tell him the pony was a 
bad roadster ; he only said it came home better than it left ; 
he did not understand that to mean it was a bad roadster ; 
he gave Mr. Magennis no engagement with the horse ; when 
purchasing him from Mr. Walker he got an engagement 
with him ; he had heard of glanders in the County Down, and 
that one horse had been glandered at Mr. Walker’s ; he had 
also heard of a man having died of that disease ; he believed 
the horse was perfectly sound when he took him to Banbridge 
fair ; in fact, he had not the slightest doubt on the subject ; 
he would have told any man that he was sound ; Mr. 
Magennis, he believed, was asked by Mr. Hamill, before the 
sale was concluded, whether or not the pony was sound, but 
he did not hear him say it was sound ; his recollection was 
clear on that matter, he was sure he did not say it ; he did 
not mention the word “warranty,” in regard to the horse, 
nor did he say u the horse is all right,” but he used words to 
the same effect ; he did not say to Mr. Magennis, “ the 
horse is all right, there is nothing wrong with him as far as 
I know ;” he said nothing but what he had already stated ; 
Mr. Hamill mentioned to him (Mr. Hunter) that Magennis 
had told him that the horse had button farcy ; Mr. Lindsay 
also told him something about the matter; he received a 
letter on the 20th September, from Mr. Magennis, complain- 
ing of the loss of the horse, but he did not I’eply to it ; he also 
got a letter from him, dated the 14th of October, and he did 
not reply to it either, because he wanted first to see Mr. 
Aiken on the subject; both Mr. Hamill and Mr. Aiken ad- 
vised him not to answer that letter ; he also received a letter 
on the 18th of December, written by Mr. Stephenson, Solici- 
tor, of Lisburn. 
Mr. Joy then read, and handed in the letters in question, 
after which, 
Mr. 0* Hagan, Q.C., in a lengthened and eloquent address, 
replied on the part of the plaintiff. 
His Lordship then charged, and the Jury, after deliberating 
for a few hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, of £31 
damages and 6d. costs. — From the Armagh ‘ Sporting Chronicle 
August 1, 1853. 
