86 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the plaintiff. The horse was killed, so that it could not be 
produced ; and his client had no notice of the horse being 
about to be killed. 
The Defendant was examined by Mr. Sleap. He stated 
that he disposed of the horse to the plaintiff for three loads 
of hay at 30s. each, and the remainder was to be paid in 
money. He denied most strongly that he had said he would 
give any warranty, but when the plaintiff complained that 
the horse was diseased, he certainly then said he would give 
him back the money if a veterinary surgeon said the horse 
was glandered ; but as the plaintiff detained the horse for 
some time afterwards, he refused then to take it back. The 
horse was sound at the time he sold it, with the exception of 
being broken-kneed. 
Cross-examined ; the plaintiff gave him the money instead 
of the hay. When he made the bargain with the plaintiff, 
he w r as perfectly sober. Repeated that he had not given any 
warranty with the horse ; on the contrary, he distinctly re- 
fused to do so. Bought the horse at Paddington, London, 
of Mr. Wall, cornchandler. He gave some hay for the horse. 
He bought two horses at the time, one of which was blind. 
He paid for both in hay, and valued that hay at £ 1 0. The 
blind horse died. The reason of him selling plaintiffs horse 
was, that the animal had broken its knees, and was too weak 
for its work. 
Mr. Brasier examined by Mr. Sleap. Was the landlord of 
the Angel Inn at Hayes ; was present when Edlin came to 
pay defendant the money for the horse, on which the de- 
fendant said if he was not satisfied with the horse, he should 
have his money back then ; but he heard him state distinctly, 
that he would not give the plaintiff any warranty. Edlin 
afterwards returned with the horse, in company with other 
persons, and he was “ fresh.” He and his party began to 
abuse Mr. Goddard. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Carter. Had some knowledge of 
the horse ; and should have recommended his own brother 
to have purchased it at the time it was sold. 
Mr. Whittington , farmer, examined by Mr. Sleap. He was 
acquainted with the horse some time ago, and it was then in 
good condition. He could not state the exact time when he 
saw the horse last. 
Mr. Carter addressed the Court at some length, and con- 
tended that nothing in the evidence had been elicited to im- 
peach the statement of the plaintiff. Though there was no 
special warranty given, the circumstance of the horse being 
diseased, was sufficient to vitiate the sale. 
