CUTTS V. JARVILL. 
335 
Mr. Joseph Machin Axe. — I knew this horse, and have examined him witli 
a view to buy him. I considered him a sound horse when I bid money for 
him. I saw him on Monday week. He was a little lame in the near hind 
leg ; but I did not perceive any lameness in the fore feet. There is a slight 
alteration in the structure of the fore feet, which I do not consider unsound - 
ness. 
Cross-examined— If the contraction is to a considerable extent, it cripples 
and ruins the horse. Lameness does not usually accompany contraction. 
lie-examined. — I consider the horse quite sound on his fore legs, but he 
has a little lameness left. 
This finishing the case for the defence, Mr. Wortley proceeded to reply, 
and spoke at considerable length, commenting on the evidence of the wit- 
nesses for the defence, and contrasting it with the evidence of the plaintiff. 
The learned Judge afterwards summed up, and at a quarter to ten o’clock 
the jury retired. After an absence of little more than half an hour, they 
returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages <£140..5s. 
WARRANTY OF SHEEP, 
CUTTS V. JARVILL. 
This was an action brought to recover damages for loss sustained by the 
plaintiff, who purchased thirty sheep of defendant, and which the defendant 
warranted sound, but which subsequently proved to be unsound. 
Mr. Willmore stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff. It appeared that 
the plaintiff, at the Retford October Fair, bought of the defendant thirty ewes, 
and the defendant in the strongest language warranted the sheep to be sound. 
The sheep were forthwith driven from Retford to the plaintiff’s farm at Car- 
burton. In the course of a month the sheep shewed symptoms of unsound- 
ness ; and on one of them being killed, its liver, upon examination by competent 
persons, was pronounced to be in the last stage of rottenness. The liver was 
rank and callous, and it was also found to be full of pipes, large enough to 
admit a man’s finger, and these pipes were full of flukes. Before the action 
was brought, the plaintiff, by letter, requested the defendant to come over to 
his farm, that they might arrange the matter between them ; but the defendant 
declined doing this, because he had not given him a warranty in writing. 
Previous also to killing the sheep, the plaintiff’s attorney wrote to the defend- 
ant, stating that it was the plaintiff’s intention to sell the sheep to a butcher, 
and that every facility should be afforded to defendant for examining the 
sheep and for forming his own opinion of their unsoundness. No notice, 
however, was taken of this letter. In support of the plaintiff’s case the fol- 
lowing evidence was adduced. 
George Bonnington , the plaintiff’s shepherd, proved that at the Retford 
Fair, in October, the defendant sold his master thirty stock ewes, and that 
the defendant warranted the sheep to be as “ sound as any sheep in the 
world;” that the plaintiff paid twenty-eight shillings a-head for thirty, that 
he drew them out, drove them home to Carburton, and that there were forty- 
two in the pen. Witness put them among their own ewes in a dry grass 
pasture, sandy land — what is called “ in the lands — they seemed to be 
“down,” and not lively as they ought to be. Mr. Dickens came to see 
them about five weeks after the purchase. Our own sheep were at the time 
in a sound state. 
Mr. Thomas Dickens , of Mansfield, proved that after examining the thirty 
sheep he told plaintiff he ought not to have bought those ewes to breed from, 
because they were not sound. On feeling them the flesh on the loin was flabby, 
