230 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
WARRANTY OF A HORSE. 
Crossly v. Singleton and others. 
Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Warren were for the Plaintiff, 
and Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton for the Defendants. 
Mr. Sergeant Murphy stated that the present action was one to 
recover damages from the defendants, who were large brewers at 
Leeds, for a breach of warranty as to a grey mare sold by them to 
the plaintiff, who was engaged in conducting boats on a canal which 
runs between Leeds and Wakefield. On the 10th of September 
last the plaintiff went to the brewery of the defendants, hearing 
they had a cart-horse to sell, he being in want of one. A per- 
son of the name of William Tailor accompanied him. They saw the 
mare, and afterwards saw one George Colt, a manager of the farms 
of the defendants, and also bought and sold horses on their account. 
The plaintiff agreed with Colt for the mare in question. He was 
asked £26 for her, and at length agreed to give £24. She was 
then warranted by Colt to be quiet, and to go in the shafts. The 
money was paid, but the mare was not taken away until the next 
day, the 1 1 th, when again Colt spoke of her being fit for the use to 
which the plaintiff intended to put her. But when tried it was 
found that she would not draw at all ; she became restive, lay on 
the ground, and broke a cart to which she had been put. Notice 
was then given to the defendants to take her back; but that they 
declined doing, and they would do no more than make plaintiff an 
offer of the sum of He refused that sum. The mare was 
eventually sold by him at public auction, when she brought £13 ..5s. 
Besides the difference between the sum paid for her and that pro- 
duced at the sale, the plaintiff had incurred expenses in keeping 
her from the 11th of September till the month following, and the 
amount of those expenses also was now claimed by him. 
Three witnesses were called by the plaintiff; — Wm. Tailor, a 
collier ; Thomas Dixon, a labouring man ; and George Colt, the 
hind or farmer of the defendants. 
Tailor’s evidence was, that he had gone with the plaintiff to 
Colt to bargain for the mare, which he and plaintiff looked at in 
Colt’s presence; but it appeared that the witness had not been 
present during a material part of the bargaining between the plain- 
tiff and Colt. He was asked as to what had passed respecting 
the price to be paid, and it then appeared that he had merely heard 
