468 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
tioned on the occasion when he went to the plaintiffs office; 
Mr. Foote and Mr. Revell were present; he was not attending 
to anything but the sale of the horses, and he had no wish to 
get the opinion of any veterinary surgeon ; but whenever 
the name of Mr. Watts was spoken of he objected to him, and 
spoke of Mr. Ferguson, but he did not prefer him to any 
other veterinary surgeon ; Levingstone said to Mr. Foote, 
“ Do you also warrant the mare, and the c vet.V opinion?” 
I do, said Mr. Foote. 
To a Juror — Took the horses on the warranty of Mr. Foote; 
the opinion of Mr. Watts was for their mutual satisfaction, 
but would not have taken the horses on the opinion of Mr. 
Watts ; having the guarantee of Mr. Foote did not require 
the opinion of a veterinary surgeon. 
Herbert Levingstone examined by Mr. Sidney. — Asked Mr. 
Foote the price of the horse; one hundred guineas said he; 
that is a high charge, said he (witness); I would take £100 
said he; would you warrant him sound; yes, said he; “and 
give a ‘ vet.V opinion ?” of course, said he ; witness asked him 
would he give him five per cent, commission if he got him a 
purchaser ; he objected to that amount as excessive, but said 
he would give it if he procured a good purchaser; mentioned 
to Mr. Barker the fact that Mr. Foote had horses to sell, and 
considered that he acted as his (Mr. Foote’s) agent ; witness, 
in reference to the conversation in the riding-school, said that 
Mr. Foote came up, and speaking to Mr. Barker relative to 
the horses, said he was getting a great bargain of them ; I 
have not seen the mare, said he (witness) ; do you also war- 
rant her sound ? Ido, said he. [Corroborated the statements 
of Mr. Barker as to the guarantee given by Mr. Foote and 
Mr. Ferguson having pronounced both the horses unsound.] 
Cross-examined by Mr. Battersby , Q.C. — Had been a coach 
proprietor. 
Hugh Ferguson (veterinary surgeon) examined by Mr. 
Sidney.— 1 examined the horse and mare which are the sub- 
ject of this action on the 10th of November, 1853; I found 
them unsound; the chestnut horse was lame of the “near” 
fore leg and also of the “ off” hind leg ; the right fore foot 
was considerably contracted, and had on it a slight corn ; I 
considered that decidedly an unsoundness; I measured the 
feet s one was considerably more than half an inch narrower 
than the other ; even if a horse had no ailment but lameness, 
I would state that he was not sound ; the horse had a bone- 
spavin so large and conspicuous that it could be detected by 
a very ordinary judge, without his requiring the aid of the 
sense of touch in his examination ; the hocks did not appear 
