VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. ] 45 
and also that the horse had been sold with a warranty. The 
price was £25. 
Mr. Prentice , for the defendant, said that, if his instruc- 
tions were correct, the jury w r ould hear from his client, and 
his witnesses, a version of this transaction just as diametri- 
cally opposite as it was well possible to conceive from that 
given by the plaintiff and his witnesses. Therefore, if his 
client were right, he would, no doubt, entitle himself to a 
verdict. 
The defendant and his witnesses were then called, and 
fully sustained the version of the matter which had been 
predicted by the learned counsel. 
Mr. Dawson was proceeding to reply, when 
Mr. Baron Platt said that the case was very limited. Had 
the horse been sold with a warranty, and was he unsound at 
the time of the sale ? These were, in reality, the questions 
into which the whole matter resolved itself. 
The jury said they were quite satisfied. 
Mr. Baron Platt. — Well then, gentlemen, what do you say? 
The Jury . — We find for the plaintiff — that there was a 
warranty, and that the horse was unsound. 
Mr. Baron Platt. — Then, that is a verdict for the plaintiff. 
What is the amount, Mr. Dawson? 
Mr. Dawson. — £21, my Lord. 
The Jury. — We wish also to say that we do not believe 
one word the defendant has said. 
Mr Dawson applied for speedy execution. 
Mr Baron Platt. — Yes ; when the jury tell me they do not 
believe the defendant, I think I should grant that. — Execution 
in four days. 
Court of Common Pleas, Westminster, February 6th. 
[Sittings at Nisi Prius , before Mr. Justice Talfourd and a 
Special Jury.) 
HOPKINS V. TANQUERAY. 
This was an action brought on the warranty of a horse, 
which was alleged to be unsound, to which the defendant 
pleaded no warranty, and that the horse was sound. 
Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Hawkins appeared for the 
plaintiff; and Mr. E. James, Q.C., Mr. Lush, and Mr. 
Campbell Foster for the defendant. 
The plaintiff, it appeared, is a stockbroker in the city, 
