274 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
longer, to see if he became any better. Mr. Geething did this, 
and the horse certainly did, for a time, appear to improve, but 
he now attributed this to the fact of its having so continued 
a rest. It afterwards, however, became worse, and it was 
sent to London to be examined by some eminent veterinary 
surgeons there. Mr. Geething then learnt that in addition to 
the lameness, which was caused both by disease of the hock 
and ringbones, it was also a roarer. Mr. Geething applied re- 
peatedly to the defendant to take back the animal and restore 
the purchase-mone}', but although he at first expressed his 
willingness to do this, he continued deferring it. Mr. Geething 
had another transaction with Mr. Reeves, and in this case also 
he found something was the matter with the horse. Mr. Reeves 
took back this animal, though in the end he refused to do so 
in the present case. Eventually, therefore, he gave Mr. Reeves 
notice that were the horse not removed before a certain day, 
and the purchase-money and the expenses returned, he 
should cause it to be sold by public auction in Newark 
Market-place. The horse was not removed, and accordingly 
on the 13th of July it was sold as it had been announced, 
£75 being the price obtained. lie believed the reason why 
so large a sum as this was paid was that the agents of 
Mr. Reeves and Mr. Geething were bidding against each other 
as to whom should be able to bring it for the inspection of 
the jury. Mr. Geething afterwards applied to the defendant 
for the balance of the purchase-money, and for the expense 
of the horsed keep ; and in reply the latter admitted that the 
horse had been a roarer, but alleged that at the time of the 
sale it was as sound a horse as ever walked. He therefore 
refused to pay the amount claimed, and in consequence the 
present action was brought to recover £7 6. 
Mr. Adam £ then called and examined the prosecutor, who 
corroborated the statements contained in the opening speech. 
The amount he now sought to recover was not merely the 
balance of the purchase-money, but also the horse’s travelling 
expenses, the fees paid to the veterinary surgeons, and 157 
days’ keep at 35. a day. The latter charge would not have 
been nearly so large had he not kept the horse much 
longer than he otherwise should have done at the frequently 
repeated request of the defendant. 
A servant of the plaintiff’s, who was present at the purchase, 
and who afterwards had charge of the animal, was also 
examined in corroboration. He heard Mr. Geething object 
to buy the horse without a special warranty, and this the 
defendant gave. He also was some time afterwards present 
when Mr. Reeves expressed his willingness to take back the 
