273 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES. 
Nisi Prius Court , — Friday . 
(Before Mr. Justice Coleridge and a Common Jury.) 
[Fxtraor dinary Case.) 
Geething v . Reeves. 
This was an action upon the warranty of a horse. Mr. 
Mellor, Q.C. and Mr. Adams appeared for the plaintiff, and 
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C. and Mr. Hayes for the defendant. 
Mr. Mellor , in stating the case, said that the plaintiff, 
Edward Geething and the defendant, Samuel Reeves were 
both extensive liorsedealers. The former resided at Hawton, 
near Newark, having also an establishment at Grantham; 
while the latter resided at Marlborough. On the 10th of 
February, 1853, the parties met at Northallerton fair, and 
there Mr. Geething purchased of the defendant a bay gelding, 
for the sum of £l 15. He noticed at the time that the horse 
appeared to be somewhat lame in one of his hind legs, but 
this the defendant accounted for by stating that it had been 
kicked during the previous night, and he assured him the 
injury was but a temporary one. He gave him a warranty 
“that the horse was sound and free from vice, and that he was 
neither a crib-biter, roarer, or wind sucker,” and to this, the 
usual form, he added the words, with some impropriety, no 
doubt, as far as the sense was concerned, though evidently 
it was simply intended to extend the warranty in every 
respect to the doubtful leg, “ especially with regard to the off 
hind leg.” This warranty Mr. Reeves signed, the money was 
paid, and the horse delivered to its new owner. Mr. Geething 
sent the horse, with a number of others he purchased at the 
same fair, to his residence. lie did not himself see the 
animal until a day or two afterwards, and then suspecting the 
lameness was not of the nature the defendant had alleged, he 
caused him to be examined by two veterinary surgeons. 
They attributed the lameness to disease in the hock, and he 
therefore wrote to Mr. Reeves, asking him to take back the 
animal on account of its being unsound in the manner he 
had stated. The defendant did not object to do this, but 
suggested that he should keep the animal for a short time 
