VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 231 
a declaration made by Colt as to what he (Colt) and the plaintiff 
had just before agreed upon in the witness’s absence. 
The learned Judge was of opinion that this evidence would 
not do. 
The learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued, that, as Colt acted 
as the agent of the defendants, statements by him with reference to 
the transaction were evidence of the terms of the contract. 
His Lordship said that would be so, undoubtedly, supposing 
the statement or admission to have formed a part of the act of the 
agent when making the contract; but the admission of an agent 
after the contract was once made, without any authority from' the 
principal to make such admission, was no evidence against the 
principal. 
Upon his Lordship’s suggestion, the agent, 
George Colt, was called for the plaintiff, though it appeared that 
the plaintiff had not intended making him a witness. Upon ex- 
amination he admitted that he had long acted for the defendants as 
their agent upon such occasions, but he denied that he had ever 
warranted the mare ; he had, on the contrary, told the plaintiff 
that he was to take her with all her faults as she was, and that she 
was “ to go for right.” When asked if his master had a stud of 
horses called “ Singleton’s greys,” he replied that he should say no 
more. They were greys; and the plaintiff never asked him whe- 
ther the mare was quiet in harness or fit to go in the shafts. All he 
(the witness) was asked was, whether she was quiet in the stable. 
Nothing was said as to whether she would draw, or how she could 
work. 
The witness Dixon spoke to the agent Colt having said, on the 
11th of September, to the plaintiff that the mare would work any 
where, and that she was fit for the shafts. 
His Lordship, however, ruled that this evidence was similar to 
that of the fir^t witness, and deficient upon the same grounds. 
The learned Judge, however, offered to leave the case to the jury, 
if the plaintiff’s counsel preferred not to be nonsuited; and the jury 
were eventually directed to find a verdict for the defendants. 
Morning Chronicle, March 13, 1847. 
Hyder v. Dixon. 
This was an action brought by Captain Hyder, formerly belong- 
ing to the 10th Dragoons, against Mr. Alfred Dixon, the son of the 
proprietor of the well-known horse repository in Barbican, to re- 
cover the value of a race-horse, known by the name of “ The Devil 
