574 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
ceived, he went over in company with a friend, Mr. Hayward, 
to the house of the defendant, on the 21st of May last, with 
a view to purchase a horse. He was there shown a black 
horse, the one now in dispute. Liked the general appear- 
ance of the animal, but remarked to his friend that the 
horse’s hocks seemed large. Saw the horse first of all in the 
stable, and he then had bandages on both his legs — very 
high up. One of the hocks seemed larger than the other — 
the near one was the larger. Defendant asked £45 for the 
horse, and plaintiff bought him eventually for that sum, 
receiving the written warranty now produced. He took the 
horse home with him, riding him a part of the w*ay, his 
friend riding the other part. Went to London a few days 
afterwards, and on his return found the horse lame. The 
animal had been in the care of his nephew, Adams, and a 
groom during his absence, and had been examined by Mr. 
Mayer, of Newcastle, w 7 ho considered him unsound. He 
then sought to return him to the defendant, who refused to 
receive him ; in consequence of which the present action had 
been brought. Cross-examined by Mr. Smallwood : Rode 
the horse on the 22d a short distance, and again on the 
23d, but did not observe him lame. Was certain that he 
observed an enlargement on the near hock before the 
purchase, and after the horse got home. It was largest 
during exercise and immediately after, but went down wuth 
rest. The groom under whose care the horse w 7 as left whilst 
he (the plaintiff) was in London had not been brought as a 
witness, as he had left his service. — William Hayward, the 
next witness called, deposed that he was a friend of Mr. 
Redfern’s, and considered himself something of a judge of 
horseflesh. Saw r a horse in the hands of Thos. Hopwood, at 
Newcastle fair, which he thought likely to suit plaintiff, and 
in consequence they w ent together on the 21st to Thomas 
Hopwood’s in search of the horse, but found he had been 
sold to defendant. Then w ent and saw the animal at The 
Rowney, defendant’s farm. Defendant did not appear 
anxious to sell at first. They told him the horse could have 
been bought at Newcastle for £40, and he said they must 
give more for him now 7 . They bought him with a warranty 
for £45. Witness examined the horse very carefully, both 
in and out of the stable. He was bandaged up to his hocks 
when they saw him first. Noticed an enlargement on the 
place w here a young horse puts out a curb — thought, indeed, 
that there had been a curb at some “future time;” but, 
looking at his age, did not think it would come against him 
on any “previous occasion” (Roars of laughter.) Mentioned 
