VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
421 
money might be paid to him. This young man was asked 
to give a receipt by Mr. Glover, but as he could not write he 
made his mark to a document that was handed to him by 
Mr. Glover, and which he (Firth) now swore was never read 
over to him, and which he believed was only a receipt, as not 
a word was ever said to him about a warranty. On the 
other hand, Mr. Edwin Middleton swore most distinctly that 
the warranty was read over to Firth before he was asked to 
make his mark to it. When the mare was taken into the 
stable, Mr. Glover immediately found that she was a crib- 
biter, and sent her back to the defendant, who refused to 
take her in. On the 13th of January, plaintiff served the 
defendant with a notice that he should sell the mare, and on 
the following Friday she was sold by auction for £l6 to 
Mr. Illingworth, who afterwards sold her for £l6 10s. to the 
defendant, in whose possession she now is. 
Mr . Morville and Mr. Cuthbert , veterinary surgeons, stated 
crib-biting to be a vice that constituted unsoundness. 
For the defence, it was urged that no warranty had been 
given with the consent of the defendant, and that the signa- 
ture of the young man who delivered the mare had not been 
given with defendant’s consent. 
Several witnesses were called upon both sides, some of 
whom, for the plaintiff, swore that a warranty had been parti- 
cularly stipulated as part of the bargain, while, on behalf of 
the defendant, others swore as positively that the subject of 
warranty had not been named. 
The case occupied the attention of the Court for a very 
considerable time, and when his Honour was called upon to 
give his decision, he said that it was impossible for him to 
give a verdict without convicting half a dozen witnesses on 
either side of perjury. Under these circumstances he would 
defer his judgment in order that he might take time to make 
the best he could of the evidence, such as it was, and where 
eight or ten witnesses had sworn as flatly contrary to each 
other as they could. 
Glover v. Great Northern Railway Company. 
This action was brought to recover £7 6s. 6d. for injury 
sustained by a pony while on its passage to London, on the 
6th of June last, and £2 5s. 6d . which had been paid on 
that occasion for its fare. Mr. Barratt appeared for the 
plaintiff, and Mr. Westmorland for the defendants, 
xxx. 56 
