462 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
over; never gave a warranty of a horse with the opinion of a 
veterinary surgeon ; this was what he avoided ; was not a 
veterinary surgeon. 
To Mr . Batter sby , Q. C. — If a buyer agreed to take the 
opinion of Mr. Watts he was bound by it. 
To the Chief Baron — If he named Mr. Watts or Mr. Farrell, 
and he pronounced the horse to be sound, the buyer paid the 
price, and his (witness’s) responsibility was at an end. The 
buyer might get the opinion of any other veterinary surgeon, 
and if he said the horse was unsound, he (witness) should 
take him back. 
Chief Baron — I do not think you understand my question : 
I mean, if you named a particular veterinary surgeon, and 
the buyer got another opinion which declared the horse un- 
sound, would you be bound by that opinion ? 
Witness — No, if a particular person was agreed on, and the 
opinion of another obtained. 
- John Revell examined — Was the plaintiff’s brother-in-law’; 
recollected an occasion when he was in Dublin, in the plain- 
tiff’s house ; two persons came in, one older than the other ; 
Mr. Barker was one of them, Mr. Levingstone the other; the 
plaintiff asked if they had come in reference to the horses ? 
they said they had : they asked the price of the horses ; he 
replied, £140; they offered him £120; he said he would divide 
the sum, but would not take the £120; they offered £l 25; 
he refused ; they went into the hall, and came back ; they 
again offered £l 25; he again- refused, saying that he would 
not take less than £130, and would sell the horses subject to 
the opinion of Mr. Watts. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Sidney — Did not hear the entire 
conversation. 
Henry Williams examined by Mr. Tuthill — Was a cousin of 
the plaintiff’s, and the manager of his establishment; re- 
membered the 10th and 11th of November; recollected the 
occasion when Mr. Barker and another person came to tire 
establishment; witness detailed a conversation which took 
place between him and Mr. Barker on that occasion, in which 
he (witness) said that he was aware of the contract between 
him and Mr. Foote; that he knew that £10 had been paid, 
and when he (Mr. Barker) gave him £120 more, he would 
give him a receipt for the amount; Mr. Barker did not deny 
the nature of the agreement, but he said that Mr. Foote was 
a gentleman, and, as he was not satisfied with the matter, he 
would not bind him to it ; he (witness) replied that Mr. Foote 
was a man of business, and would require the fulfilment of 
any contract which had been entered into with him ; Mr. 
