546 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
The defendant’s wife deposed that she was present when 
the plaintiff paid for the mare; Mr. Greenland wrote some- 
thing on a piece of paper, but upon her reading it to her 
husband he refused to sign it, saying “ I shall do no such 
thing ; I shall not warrant her for an hour, nor a minute.” 
The money was paid after the refusal to sign the paper. 
Her -husband said rather than sign it he 'would give the 
plaintiff 10$. and take back the mare ; plaintiff said he did 
not do business in that way, paid the money and went away. 
Cross-examined — There was no receipt on the paper, but 
merely a warranty. 
Wm, Haskins , brother to the defendant, deposed that on 
the morning of the 19th, he was at his brother’s house: Mr. 
Greenland was there about the mare ; witness found there 
was a difference of only 10$. between them ; his brother said 
he would not come down a penny, and witness offered to 
split the difference and gave his brother 5s . , if the plaintiff 
would also come up 5s., and he agreed to do so. There was 
nothing said about a warranty. 
Sampson Jefferies , a labourer at Warmley, deposed that he 
was present at the Tennis Court, Warmley, when the plaintiff 
and defendant were there dealing for the mare. Nothing 
was said about a warranty. 
Mr. King replied, pointing out that the balance of testimony 
was in favour of the plaintiff, whose statement, corroborated 
as it was by other witnesses, was consistent with his conduct 
at the final settlement. 
His Honour briefly reviewed the evidence on both sides ; 
he said there were only two points to be decided. First, was 
the mare unsound, and secondly, whether at the time of sale, 
there had been a warranty. On the first point there could 
be no doubt, as the evidence of Mr. Kent was distinct and 
uncontradicted, and as to the second point, he thought the 
statement of the plaintiff more consistent with truth than 
that of the defendant, and, therefore, the verdict would be for 
the plaintiff for the amount claimed. 
[With reference to this case, and the comments made on 
Mr. Kent’s evidence, we have received from that gentleman 
the following letter, which sufficiently explains the par- 
ticulars.] 
Dear Sirs, — I send you a Bristol newspaper, the supple- 
ment to which contains the report of a horse cause which has 
just been tried here. You will see that I am not very compli- 
mentary to books as witnesses in court. 
The circumstance referred to by the Counsel took place at 
a trial at Liverpool in 1849. 
