VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
471 
Edward Dycer , examined by Mr. CP Hagan, Q. C. — Is a vete- 
rinary surgeon; examined the horse of Mr. Foote, and gave 
a certificate on the 21st of November; the chestnut horse was 
perfectly unsound; he was spavined and had corns; the mare 
had corns upon both hocks, and bony enlargement, which he 
called “ ringbone ;” she was decidedly unsound ; if a party 
gave a warranty subject to the opinion of a veterinary 
surgeon, the latter opinion was binding; but if he gave 
a warranty, and likewise promised and procured the opinion 
of a veterinary surgeon, the warranty of the seller was 
binding; diseases may be latent in horses, and therefore 
escape the notice of the surgeon, and if the seller warrant a 
horse sound under such circumstances, and he turn out to be 
unsound, he may be sent back. 
To the Chief Baron — If the horse is sold as sound, " subject 
to the opinion of a veterinary surgeon,” the professional 
opinion binds ; if a warranty is given, and “ also the opinion 
of the veterinary surgeon,” there the warranty over-rides the 
professional. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Batter sly, Q. C. — Sold about fifty or 
sixty thousand horses in the year ; the most usual practice 
was to sell horses subject to the opinion of a veterinary 
surgeon ; a technical unsoundness was that which would not 
interfere with the utility of an animal ; an essential unsound- 
ness was that which did interfere with his utility. 
The Chief Baron, with the consent of the parties, read the 
evidence given on the former trial by a horse dealer named 
Myers, to render his personal examination unnecessary. From 
the testimony it appeared that he (Myers) lived in Manchester, 
and when in Dublin he save the horse in the Castle yard, and 
would have bought him for £125, but that he was lame of 
the fore feet, and was not, in his opinion, sound. 
Mr. O' Hagan, Q. C., at the close of the evidence for the 
defendant, contended that his learned friend, Mr. W. Sidney, 
was entitled to a speech on behalf of the defendant, inasmuch 
as certificates had been produced and handed to Mr. Ferguson 
on cross-examination, which amounted to a rebutting case. 
The Chief Baron said that he did not think the documents 
had been given in evidence ; they had been merely produced 
and handed to the witness to refresh his memory ; he would 
say, that the credit of the witness had not been at all affected 
by what had taken place in court in connection with those 
documents. 
Mr. O' Hagan, Q.C., replied, that if that was his lordship’s 
opinion he was satisfied. 
Mr. Batter sly, Q. C., then addressed the jury on behalf of 
