OBSERVATIONS ON THE LAW OF WARRANTY. 691 
moment, and that, after all, it is but a difference of opinion, 
which leads to the painful scenes which are so often wit- 
nessed in our courts. Who, however, has not known 
that the opinions which are given have often reference, not 
to the consequences of disease, but to the existence of the 
disease itself? 
If it be true that the law says disease is unsoundness, 
then the question which the veterinary surgeon has to decide 
is, — what is disease ? For me to answer this does not require 
that I should name every known malady, but rather that I 
should take a broad view of the subject. Some veterinary 
surgeons may seem inclined, by the trifling character of some 
affections, not to agree with my definition of the term un- 
soundness, — the existence of disease, — but those gentlemen 
must see their error if they only reflect for a minute that 
disease, however trifling, causes unsoundness in the eye of 
the law. It may be very well for a veterinary surgeon, in 
giving a certificate of his examination of a horse, to state his 
opinion as to how far a disease which he has detected is 
likely to interfere with the utility of the animal ; but every 
veterinary surgeon would greatly err if he ventured to give 
a certificate of the soundness of a horse which is at the time 
suffering from the slightest malady, because of its non- 
likelihood to prove injurious to the utility of the animal. 
The next question which forces itself upon the mind is, 
what are we to understand by ee the seeds of disease / 5 which 
the law also recognises as constituting unsoundness ? Firstly , 
Does hereditary disposition constitute the existence of the 
seeds of disease ? Secondly , Does congenital malformation do 
so? Thirdly , Does a disease, which had once affected the 
animal, and for which he has been treated, necessarily 
produce these seeds of disease? Before we can answer even 
the first of these queries, it seems necessary to divide it into 
two parts. Is an hereditary predisposition or a congenital 
malformation to be regarded as seeds of a disease? Now 
I think it is easy enough to answer the first part of this ques- 
tion. If hereditary predisposition is to be so considered, how 
many animals, or even human beings, are there who are not 
predisposed to some affection which has either descended di- 
rectly from their parents or from some one of their ancestors ? 
With regard to congenital malformation, I think the 
balance of evidence would be in favour of such not con- 
stituting the seeds of disease. We will suppose, for instance, 
that a colt is foaled “ knock-kneed 55 to such an extent that 
he is unable to get one leg before the other, except by a 
peculiar lateral movement. Now where, we may ask, is tb 
