STRAY PAFERS ON VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 203 
requisite for us invariably to state in our decision, first, the un- 
soundness; secondly, whether it did or was likely to interfere with 
the function of the part or the duties of the animal; thirdly, if it 
depreciated his value ; and, lastly, if it rendered him returnable. 
This I conceive to be the only true basis upon which you can ex- 
press your opinion properly in your certificate, and which, unless 
it combines these essentials, is, in my opinion, a perfectly useless 
and unmeaning piece of paper. This will be more apparent when 
we take into consideration the subject in a legal point of view. 
The word sound in reference to animals, as made use of in legal 
phraseology, is intended to denote that the animal is to all intents 
what he was represented to be ; that he is free from any disease 
that does or is likely to render him incapable of performing what 
is required from him perfectly. 
Lord Ellenborough has thus expressed the law on the subject : — • 
“ if a horse be affected by any malady which renders him less 
serviceable for a permanency, I have no doubt that it is unsound- 
ness. I have always held, and now hold, that a warranty of 
soundness is broken, if the animal at the time of sale had any in- 
firmity upon him which rendered him less fit for present service. 
It is not necessary that the disorder should be permanent or in- 
curable.” So also in the case quoted by “A Lawyer,” the decision 
of Baron Parke is conclusive on the point. “ I think,” he says, 
“ the word sound means what it expresses, namely, that the animal 
is sound and free from disease at the time he is warranted to be 
sound. If, indeed, the disease were not of a nature to impede the 
natural usefulness of the animal for the purpose for which he is 
used, as, for instance, if a horse had a slight pimple on his skin, 
it would not amount to an unsoundness ; but even if such a thing 
as a pimple were on some part of the body where it might have 
that effect, as, for instance, on a part which would prevent the 
putting a saddle or bridle on the animal, it would be different.” 
In determining, therefore, whether or not an animal is unsound, 
you have to consider, 1st, Professionally , if there are any devia- 
tions from health or alterations in structure, and if those alterations 
do or do not interfere with the usefulness of the animal; 2d, 
Legally , if the animal had these maladies or infirmities at the time 
of sale. You are, doubtless, aware that in horse-dealing a cove- 
nant is entered into between the purchaser and seller, and any 
breach of that covenant occasioned by the horse turning out not 
what it was represented to be, is an unsoundness. It may so 
happen that you may be called upon to give an opinion as to 
soundness some months after purchase. You will, therefore, per- 
ceive that to render your opinion of any weight, or, in fact, of any 
service to your employer, you must not only understand the nature 
of the covenant, but be able to say if that covenant has been 
