VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
559 
attended the pony ; but, about two months before he was 
sold, Mr. Saxelby asked his opinion whether he should sell 
him or fire him, and he (witness) said u sell him as he is, for 
it is a very uncertain case.” The disease had been coming 
on a long time ; it was on the coronet of the near fore foot. 
If he had been sound twenty guineas would have been a 
good price for him, but with the unsoundness he was not 
worth £10. Witness’s bill was £l. 2s. Qd. for keep, &c. 
Mr. Boroughs : I suppose, Mr. Statham, anybody would 
see with half an eye that the pony had a contracted foot ? 
Mr. Statham : 1 doubt whether you would see it with both 
eyes. (Laughter.) It was quite perceptible to me. The 
unsoundness would gradually get worse. 
Mr. Merewether replied, calling upon the jury at once to 
dismiss from their minds the conversation about arbitration, 
and the alleged talk in the Market Place, as unimportant 
matters introduced to hide the real point in the case. The 
question for their consideration was, did the defendant warrant 
the pony ? The defendant stated that nothing was said 
about the horse being lame, or about a warranty ; and here 
he was distinctly contradicted by one of his own witnesses, 
who said “ Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Saxelby whether he would 
warrant the pony, and Mr. Saxelby said no ; he never would 
warrant it.” He put it to the common sense of the jury 
whether the plaintiff or any other sane man, seeing the horse 
lame on one foot, would have given £19 10s. for it without a 
warranty. Then again Mr. Saxelby knew Mr. Statham’s 
opinion about the horse, and yet, according to the evidence 
for the plaintiff, he stated the horse was slightly lame through 
having a shoe off. Mr. Saxelby did not tell the Jury what 
he gave for this 30 or 40 guinea pony. 
Mis Honour , in summing up, said as there was no dispute 
about the soundness, only one question remained for the 
consideration of the Jury, and that was with reference to the 
warranty. It was not necessary in such cases that the word 
“ warrant” should be used. If a person says, “ Is the animal 
sound ?” and the seller says “ it is,” that is a warranty ; but 
if he says I believe him to be sound, not knowing anything 
to the contrary, that would not be a warranty. If he says 
“ I uphold him to be sound,” or that “ he is sound,” that 
would be a warranty. Now the question was, was anything 
to that amount said ; and in this case there was the usual 
discrepancy. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant said 
“ I’ll warrant it all right.” Campion, his witness, puts it 
thus: “ Will you warrant him sound?” and the defendant 
said “ Yes.” Then, in the case for the defence, Saxelby says 
