18 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
This action was brought to recover the value of a race- 
horse named “ Economy,” and also money lent by the plaintiff 
to the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue 
to both counts, and, as to the count upon the horse, he also 
pleaded that it was not the plaintiff* s horse. 
The plain tiff (Hadland) was a licensed victualler in Poppin’s 
Court, Fleet Street, and the defendant (Price) was a farmer 
and horse trainer at Chiddington, in the county of Bucking- 
ham. It appeared that the plantiff and defendant attended at 
the last Rochester and Chatham races, which took place on the 
8th of September. The race was what was termed a w selling” 
race, which was explained to mean a race for which horses 
were entered upon the terms that the horse which won the 
race was to be sold by auction to the highest bidder ; but the 
owner received only the price put upon the horse when it was 
entered, the balance going to the race-fund. Horses thus 
entered were weighted according to the amount put upon 
them, those 5 of the highest price having the greatest weight. 
At the last Chatham races, the horse 16 Economy” won the 
Speculation Plate, and was afterwards sold by auction at the 
winning-post for 65 guineas. The question now was, whether 
the plaintiff or the defendant was the purchaser? According 
to the evidence given by the plaintiff and another person 
named Manning, the clerk of the Newmarket Jockey Club, 
who was standing by the auctioneer, the horse was knocked 
down to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then discovered that he 
had only £45 in his pocket, and, not wishing it to be known 
that he was the purchaser, he borrowed £23 5s. of the 
defendant, and, giving him the £45, got him to pay for the 
horse, and to take a receipt for the price in his name. Ac- 
cording to the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant, when he 
had thus got the horse, refused to give it up to the plaintiff 
unless he would pay him £5 for his trouble ; but the plantiff 
refused to give him more than half-a-sovereign. The defend- 
ant then kept the horse. The next day, the plaintiff again 
went down to Chatham, and then found that the horse 
“ Economy” had been entered for the West Kent Stakes, in 
the name of a person named Hitchen. The plaintiff protested 
against this, and claimed his horse, but it was allowed to run, 
and it won the stakes, valued at £50, and was again sold the 
same day for an increased price. Evidence was also given to 
show that the defendant, on the day of the first sale, admitted 
the plaintiff had bought the horse, but stated that he (the 
defendant) had got an offer of £15 for the bargain, and that 
if the plaintiff would not give him £5, he would stick to the 
horse. The defendant sold the horse the same day. 
