524 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
action, finally inducing a deposition of bone, which interfered with 
the action of the muscles, causing lameness; and this spavin, it was 
said, must have been of such standing as clearly to have been in 
existence when the horse was sold.. 
The witnesses for the plaintiff also stated that the effect of the 
“ wilrem-haunch” was to cause the horse to be sooner fatigued in 
consequence of the excessive action of the limb so affected. It 
was an affection of the nerve causing a spasmodic action in the 
flexor muscles, and, in the opinion of the witnesses, was an 
unsoundness, inasmuch as it impaired the power of the horse, and 
rendered him incapable of performing the work which in other 
circumstances he could have performed. 
Mr. James, for the defence, contended that, upon the evidence 
adduced for the plaintiff, it was clear that the question of spavin 
was a mere after-thought. In the letters from the plaintiff to the 
defendant nothing of the horse being spavined was stated. The 
stringhalt, or “ wilrem-haunch,” was the only thing spoken of ; and 
any symptom of the former disease might readily have arisen 
between the time when the horse was sold and that at which the 
witnesses had examined him. 
A number of witnesses were called whose testimony traced the 
horse up to the time when he was sold to the plaintiff, and who 
stated that at that time he had no appearance of spavin. It was 
admitted he was slightly affected with stringhalt, but this, the 
witnesses stated, they did not consider an unsoundness. 
His lordship in summing up said, he should first leave to the 
jury the question respecting the stringhalt with which it was 
admitted the horse was affected. As to that, the question for the 
jury to decide would be, whether it was a disease the natural effect 
of which would be to impair his natural usefulness. 
The jury found this in the affirmative. 
Verdict for the plaintiff — Damages £25. 
The Times. 
Collins v . Newstead. 
This was a Yorkshire horse cause, brought on for trial at Guild- 
ford, August 3, 1846. The plaintiff is an extensive horse-dealer in 
Lambeth, Surrey. The defendant is a farmer, residing at Farling- 
ton, Yorkshire. The question was the soundness or unsoundness 
of a chestnut mare, sold by Newstead to Collins, at Malton fair, 
on the 1st of April last. The warranty was admitted. The 
