84 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
servant discovered that the horse was a most outrageous roarer. 
The horse was then examined by a gentleman more celebrated 
than any other person in that line in England or in Europe — 
Mr. Field, of Oxford-street — who declared the horse to he a 
roarer, and that the roaring was a disease of long standing. An 
application was made to General Brooks to take the horse back, 
but the General refused to do so. Mr. Yallance then sent the 
horse to a livery-stable, and from thence to Aldridge’s Reposi- 
tory, where it was sold for £13..8s..6c?, plus the commission. It 
was somewhat singular that General Brooks should declare the 
horse sound, when Mr. Field pronounced the roaring to be a 
disease of some standing. He should shew that General Brooks 
had had the horse for twelve months, and must have heard it 
roar. The great battle, the jury would perceive, was one of 
character. When Mr. Blundell saw the General, the latter said 
he believed the horse to be sound and quiet; he had been war- 
ranted sound to him, and nothing whatever had been the matter 
with the horse since he had had him. It would be for the jury to 
say whether General Brooks did or did not then know that the 
horse was unsound. There was no specific warranty given ; 
but the whole of the reported cases on what the law termed 
qualified warranty went to shew, that, when a man said he be- 
lieved a horse to be sound, but would not warrant him, he was still 
answerable on the qualified warranty. [The learned gentleman 
here cited several cases.] The General stated that he was not 
in the habit of warranting horses, but he believed the horse in 
question to be sound ; and he (Mr. Williams) would apply the 
cases in that way. General Brooks declined to warrant the 
horse, but he said the horse was warranted to him twelve 
months previously, and nothing had happened since. If he 
could shew that the General was in the constant habit of driving 
the horse or riding behind him, and that the horse was a con- 
firmed roarer, the inference would be that the General knew 
the horse was unsound at the time he sold him, and that Mr. 
Yallance was induced to purchase the animal on the erroneous 
representations of the defendant. He should call a servant — 
or, rather, one who had been a servant — to the defendant ; and 
that witness would state, that not only did his master know the 
horse to be a roarer, but had pointed out the circumstance to the 
witness. The defendant gave the horse some physic, observing 
that the horse was young, and would probably get over it. The 
witness doubted whether there was any cure, and advised the 
General to get rid of him. He called this witness at some risk, 
as he came from the enemy’s camp. The General refused to 
take back the horse, but wrote the following letter : — 
