VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
85 
“ Clewer Green, May 28th. 
u Sir,— I was much surprised at the receipt of your letter this morning, 
and it gave me great concern that the horse had not answered your ex- 
pectation. I believed him to be sound, as I told you ; and unless Mr. 
Blundell has injured him by riding the poor animal to London (which, 
considering his heavy weight and the horse being unused to the saddle, is 
not improbable), I should say he is so still. I beg to remind you that, in 
the first instance, you sent Mr. Blundell to examine him, he drove him in 
my heavy carriage, and was allowed every trial he asked for. Some days 
after, you came down accompanied by the same person, when he again 
drove him, and you were both allowed whatever trial you wished. You 
asked if I would warrant him, and two of my men can testify that I de- 
clined. I told you he was warranted to me, and I considered him a much 
better horse now than when I bought him, but I never would warrant a 
horse. At the same time I said I wished you and your friend to examine 
him thoroughly, which you both did. After consulting with your friend 
some time you left, saying you would write to me in the evening, and the 
next morning I received your letter offering £45, which I rejected. Six 
days afterwards Mr. Blundell again appeared, with your letter offering £50. 
This was also refused. Mr. Blundell then said, if I would give him a 
sovereign for his trouble he would pay me £51 10s. I replied, the price 
was fifty guineas, and I would not take a fraction less : a tolerable proof 
that I considered the horse sound. Under these circumstances you must 
excuse me for declining to take the animal back. 
“ I am, Sir, very obediently your’s, 
“ G. B. Brooks.” 
“ H. Vallance, Esq.” 
The letter said the General never warranted the horse ; but 
the question for the jury would be, whether the General really 
believed the horse to be a better horse than when he bought 
him. To that letter Mr. Vallance replied as follows : — 
“ Sir, — I was absent from town yesterday, or I should have replied to 
your note received yesterday morning. I am much surprised at the con- 
tents. The question, however, between you and I is a very simple one. 
You sold me your horse, telling me the horse was sound. I bought him 
on the assumption he was sound — you led me to suppose he was so. It 
is, you will observe, quite immaterial to me whether you knew he was un- 
sound or not. I paid a sound price for him ; you said he was warranted 
sound to you, adding, that nothing had been the matter with him since you 
had had him. Now, this unsoundness must have existed a long time. I only 
saw him to judge of his shape and action. As to his soundness, I could 
not try him or have him examined. I relied on your assurance as an officer 
and a gentleman, and upon this I will rely; for I feel assured you will not 
allow me to assume any other tone than to ask you now to take back the 
horse. I have no hesitation in adding, you are legally and morally bound 
to do so, and, waiting your reply, 
“ I am, Sir, very obediently your’s 
“ H. Vaixance, 
“ 50, Porchester Terrace, 
“ 30th May, 1850.” 
“ Major-General Brooks.” 
Had such a letter been sent to him, be (Mr. Williams) certainly 
thought he should have answered it. General Brooks, however, 
VOL. XXIV. N 
