VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 87 
In answer to the Judge, Mr. Field said, he considered the 
horse a bad roarer, because he roared when put into a gallop, 
almost before he got into his pace. Six miles an hour up a 
hill — coming into Windsor — would make a roarer shew the 
disease. 
After some length of evidence of a dubious and contradictory 
character — 
Mr. SKINNER argued for the defence. — But if the jury, by 
their verdict, should say that General Brooks had wilfully 
deceived Mr. Vallance, then would the General forfeit that 
high character, without which, in a service so vigilantly 
watched* as the British army, he would never have attained 
the rank of Major-General. General Brooks might be said 
to be placed on his trial before them. The General asked 
not a verdict to escape the payment of a miserable sum of 
money — for that was a matter of indifference to either the 
plaintiff or the defendant — but as a proof that he had not de- 
scended to falsehood in the description of the horse. Would 
any man with a horse intrinsically worth no more than £14 re- 
fuse an offer of £45, had he known of the animal’s unsoundness] 
Would he, when the offer was increased to £50, and £51.. 10s., 
insist upon his original price of 50 guineas] As to Mr.Vallance’s 
letter, the jury might take it for granted, that when a lawyer wrote 
to a man to say that £45 was legally and morally due to him, 
an action at law was at hand. As sure as effect followed cause, 
so sure was the man to have a writ (laughter). General Brooks 
had been served, and would be served out, unless the jury stood 
between him and Mr. Vallance’s long range. If the warranty 
was good, it stood upon the General’s knowledge of the exist- 
ence of the disease, and upon his declarations to the contrary 
continued throughout the whole of the negociation. But had it 
been proved that the General had said any thing about the 
soundness of the horse at the third meeting, when the bargain 
was concluded] He believed there was no case against the 
defendant, and he might have asked his Honour to direct a non- 
suit, but he was instructed to take a verdict on the merits; and, 
on General Brooks’ part, emphatically to deny the imputation 
insidiously made upon his character. 
The Judge then summed up. The case, he said, notwithstand- 
ing the time it had been before the Court, lay in a nutshell. 
The law was perfectly plain, and the only question for the jury 
was, whether at the time the horse was sold, General Brooks 
knew that the animal was a roarer, and so, unsound. The only 
difference between an absolute and a qualified warranty was 
that, in the former case, the party had to shew the written 
undertaking; in the latter he must shew that deceit had been 
