173 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
COTHER V. NEWMAN. 
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Welsby were counsel for the 'plaintiff, and Mr. 
Peter sdorff for the defendant. 
The plaintiff in this action was a barrister, and the defendant 
was a horse-dealer. The action was brought to recover the value 
of a horse, under the following circumstances. The plaintiff seeing 
an advertisement for the sale of horses, went to the defendant’s 
yard, and there he agreed to purchase a horse for £45. He paid 
the money, received a warranty of soundness, and took the horse 
away with him. He used him in a Clarence carriage ; but at the 
end of eight days, his friend, who had been present at the time of 
the purchase, called and saw the horse, and they were of opinion 
that it was not the same horse that the plaintiff had purchased. 
The plaintiff then went to the defendant’s yard, and stated that 
it was not the same horse, and required the defendant to return the 
money. The plaintiff then said he should stand upon his warranty, 
for the horse had broken knees. 
After some discussion, the defendant said, if the plaintiff would 
put the horse in the stable he would repay him, if Mr. Cother 
would be quiet about it. This the plaintiff would not do, and he 
afterwards caused the horse to be sold. The only witness called 
as to the identity of the horse was the plaintiff’s friend, who was 
present at the purchase, and he thought that it was not the horse. 
Mr. Justice Wlghtman said, it was purely a question of identity. 
It certainly was singular that a gentleman in the law should have 
taken the horse home, and kept it for eight days, before he disco- 
vered that it was not the one he intended to purchase. It certainly 
was very strange. 
A Juror. — But, my Lord, the horse’s knees were broken, and 
yet there was a warranty. 
Mr Justice Wightman. — Gentlemen, I must tell you, that there 
is not any question of unsoundness raised. 
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. 
