VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
743 
not warrant the horse, while you are rattling him about, for 
a year or two.” Did not warrant the horse at all. Did not 
say, when Goff complained of the breathing, that it was on 
account of the horse’s full belly. If witness did say so he 
had forgotten it. Thought he had heard of the grunting of 
the horse since it was sold to Mr. Goff. Might have heard 
it, but could not say for certain. Received a message to go 
and see the horse cut up, but refused. Witness’s two sons 
and Wright were present when the horse was sold. Wit- 
ness’s wife was present, in and out of the room, when they 
were settling for the horse. 
Re-examined : Had no doubt his wife and son were present 
when the horse was settled for. The wind was the only thing 
Goff complained of. 
Mary Bird (wife of the defendant) : Was in a passage close 
to the room door in which the sale was effected, and could 
hear every word as well as if she had been in the room. She 
confirmed her husband’s version of the transaction. 
George Bird and Josiah Bird , sons of the defendant, gave 
evidence confirmatory of the defendant’s statement, Josiah 
Bird admitting, on cross-examination, that he had heard the 
horse grunt, but could not say when. 
William Wright , wheelwright, Everdon, said he was in the 
street on the 8th July last, and saw Mr. Bird and Mr. Goff 
on the bridge. Saw Eary and Goff ride the horse. Heard 
Goff ask Bird if he would warrant the horse. Bird answered, 
“ Not a day.” 
Cross-examined : Was near the arch, and did not take par- 
ticular notice of what was said. Heard nothing about the 
grunting. 
William Blunsom examined : Had practised farriery for forty 
years. If the horse had had seven or eight gallons of water 
in him it would have shown externally. No mistake could 
have been made as to inflammation. The water could not 
have been as described without producing disease of the 
lungs. The evidence he had heard was not sufficient to 
enable a professional man to give a decided opinion. 
Cross-examined: If it were true that the grunting took place, 
and seven or eight gallons of water were found, the water 
might perhaps cause the grunting, and such grunting would 
be an unsoundness. Had heard the evidence given by the 
professional witnesses in this case, and, if the facts were true 
as stated, agreed with them in opinion. 
Verdict for the Plaintiff ; damages, £36. 
