52C 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. James said this was an action for having really been 
guilty of a serious offence, in not having merely sold the plain- 
tiff an unsound horse, for some held in the morals of horse 
dealing that all cheating was fair, but in selling to Mizen, 
w 7 ho was a farmer, a horse that had nearly ruined him, for 
within a fortnight six of his horses died ; it was of serious 
consequence to him, as it being seed time, if the clergyman 
and others had not lent their horses to work his land it would 
have been his absolute ruin. The parties resided near Saffron 
Walden. On the 4th of February plaintiff saw Bunten, who 
is a horse-dealer, in Walden market, and finding he wanted 
to buy a horse, he said he would sell him the black horse 
which his brother had used, which was not true ; it was not 
the horse, and his knowledge* of this horse being glandered 
would be shown by the falsehoods which he told. On 
Monday plaintiff went to look at the horse ; nothing was 
said about a warranty then, but the plaintiff seeing something 
suspicious about the nostrils — and they knew that glanders 
was one of the most dangerous diseases, that had frequently 
caused the loss of human life — called the attention of Bunten 
to it, observing, surely it is not glanders. Defendant 
replied, u Oh no, I’ll take oath it is not glandered, it has a 
little cold in its head.” Plaintiff said— “ Will you warrant 
it?” Bunten replied, “ I’ll warrant it is not glanders, and 
nothing catching.” Mizen bought it, and took it home on 
the 6th. He should prove that the horse at that time must 
have been glandered for days and weeks, and with the know- 
ledge of the defendant ; and in less than a fortnight plaintiff 
lost six horses, which caught the disease and died. They 
also tried an experiment w 7 ith a donkey, which they inoculated 
with the virus from the diseased horse, and that died in 
seven days. The value of the six horses w r as between £90 
and £100. Now 7 the defendant was liable for the damage 
done, for if he sold the horse, knowing the disease and its 
power of infection, he was liable for the wdiole damage that 
the plaintiff sustained. He w-as told they were to have great 
authorities on the other side ; Mr. Spooner, of the Veterinary 
College, was to come to give his opinion that this horse might 
not have had the glanders ; but he should call gentlemen who 
would tell them w 7 hat they actually saw : and he should be 
much surprised if the defendant with all his men of science 
and judgment in the matter, was able to alter one tittle of the 
evidence. 
William Mizen, the plaintiff. On the 4th of February I 
was at Saffron Walden market, in w T ant of a horse, and spoke 
to defendant, who said “ I have the horse that was at your 
