STRAY PAPERS ON VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 205 
“ A warranty extends to all faults known and unknown to the seller; 
and whether of secret infirmity or latent defect, it includes every 
defect which is usually regarded as such by persons conversant 
with the practice of trade or professionally skilled in the constitu- 
tional nature and habits of the animal. But to make an exception 
as to general soundness, a qualification of such general warranty, 
the exception must not be one of a mere temporary nature and 
arising from some slight accident ; nor is a horse so circumstanced 
to be deemed unsound within the meaning of such general war- 
ranty. In all cases, the purchaser attempting to defeat the con- 
tract must positively prove the horse unsound.” Such is briefly 
the law relating to the warranty of horses, so far as is connected 
with the present part of our subject; and thus, legally, soundness 
is defined, in its enlarged sense, to be an exemption from radical 
constitutional defects, but in its practical sense is construed so as 
to exclude every defect by which the animal is rendered less fit 
for present use and convenience. Now, allow me to ask you, 
gentlemen, if it has appeared to you, in the perusal of these hastily 
connected sentences, that the law has interposed any difficulties in 
the way of arriving at an opinion on the soundness and unsoundness 
of horses 1 It is perfectly true that it has increased our responsi- 
bilities — it is perfectly clear that it depends on our opinion and 
our advice, whether or not the covenant has been broken between 
purchaser and seller, and the laws of the land shall or not be appealed 
to for the protection of the injured party. If an animal has been 
sold with a proper warranty, and by your professional and legal 
knowledge you can point out that he is not a sound animal — that 
he has some secret infirmity, some latent defect — that there are 
some alterations in his structure existing — surely on such a sub- 
ject there ought not to be any difference of opinion, but one and 
all of us should unite in pronouncing that animal to be unsound. Our 
duty to ourselves, our duty to our employers, requires that we 
should thus decide. We have, however, another duty to per- 
form — the last-mentioned at the commencement of this paper — 
that is, a duty to the seller. Here lies the stumbling-block of the 
profession. It is the endeavour to fulfil this duty, combined with 
certain experience, which may be termed horse knowledge, that 
leads, in my judgment, to that contrariety of opinion, and to that want 
of unanimity on the question of soundness and unsoundness, which 
at this moment agitates the veterinary profession. Ask any vete- 
rinary surgeon quietly, whether he considers an alteration of struc- 
ture to be an unsoundness; and he will say, Yes. Take a horse 
to be examined by the same individual, and the probability is that 
he will say nothing of half a dozen defects which the animal may 
have, and pronounce him sound. Ask him why he does so, and 
VOL. XIX. F f 
