670 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
certain. Could violence or inexperience in giving a ball have 
produced it? This, just now, is the only probable cause 
which suggests itself to our mind. — E d. Vet. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
BREACH OF WARRANTY. 
Phillips v. Cane. 
(County Court). — This was a case of breach of warranty 
of a horse which excited considerable interest, as well as 
another for shooting a shepherds dog, belonging to a lad 
late in the employ of Mr. Brown, of Farleigh. In the 
former cause, Mr. Lewin Phillips, of this town, grocer, was 
plaintiff, and Mr. Thomas Cane, of Burghfield, Berks, far- 
mer, defendant. For the plaintiff, Mr. Prickett; for defend- 
ant, Mr. Slocombe, of Reading. The plaintiff stated that 
he bought a horse of the defendant in July last, warranted 
sound, for £29, but which soon afterwards fell lame, and a 
veterinary surgeon, Mr. Loader, of Basingstoke, proved that 
he had examined the horse at the time of the sale, but refused 
to pass it as sound, although nothing appeared to warrant 
him in describing it as unsound. On his assistance being 
afterwards required he found thrush in both feet, which 
yielded to treatment; and he then ascertained that the horse 
had recently had an acute attack of laminites, from having 
been driven fast on hard roads, which produced contraction 
of the feet and permanent unsoundness. On the part of the 
defendant a veterinary surgeon, Mr. Wheatley, of Reading, 
proved that he had on the previous day very carefully ex- 
amined the horse, and could discover not the slightest traces 
of laminites ; that although the feet were weak and not 
well formed, it was a mere natural defect, and he considered 
the animal to be perfectly sound : he, however, admitted, on 
cross-examination, that he had examined it with reference to 
thrush and grease only, and had not removed the shoes, which, 
indeed, he said would have been unnecessary even if the 
existence of laminites had been suspected. Other witnesses 
were examined on both sides, and the judge, after remarking 
on the conflicting testimony, always given in horse cases, 
gave judgment for the plaintiff for £13 l6<?., the amount 
claimed, plaintiff having received the difference on a sale of 
the horse in the public market . — Reading Mercury , Nov. 5. 
