VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
557 
In answer to his Honour , Mr. Brown said he had tried to 
cough the mare, but could not succeed; he did not attach 
much importance to that after a horse had arrived at six 
years of age. 
Mr. Kearsey then referred to the evidence of the different 
witnesses, and submitted that there was no breach of war- 
ranty of soundness in this case. Mason had been the cause 
of the mischief, in volunteering an opinion upon the mare 
on seeing her in the stable, and he contended that no im- 
portance could be attached to Mr. Mason’s testimony upon 
the point of soundness. Mr. Price had stated that the dis- 
ease was apparent to the common observer, and did not re- 
quire scientific examination, yet looking at the evidence of 
the witnesses he had called, and after his Honour had heard 
the whole case, he relied on a verdict being returned in his 
client’s favour. 
Mr. Symons contended that there could not be a doubt about 
the warranty, and he asked his Honour to give great credit 
to Mason’s testimony. The unsoundness did not consist in 
broken wind, but in a disease akin to bronchitis, and after 
Professor Brown had made an examination of the mare, he 
advised the parties to compromise the matter. 
His Honour said his mind had not undergone any change 
during the proceedings as to the warranty of the mare’s 
being sound, and the words u best of my knowledge ” only 
referred to the mare’s being in foal. Though they were used 
by the defendant to avoid a warranty, he did not effect that 
intention by using such an imperfect sentence. The case 
was, therefore, reduced to one question, a warranty in respect 
of soundness, and whether or not there had been a breach 
of that warranty. His Honour then went carefully through 
the evidence, and referred especially to Professor Brown’s, 
which had led him to the conclusion that the horse was 
sound. 
Judgment was then given for defendant. 
NISI PRIUS COURT, SATURDAY. 
(j Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.) 
Brown v . Shave. 
Mr. Worlledge opened the pleadings, and Mr. O’Malley 
stated the case for the plaintiff. 
