VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 233 
sold by the defendant; that lie could have run five severe heats at 
the Chatham races, and have won the race. 
Mr. Sergeant Shee, on behalf of the defendant, complained that, 
by the proceeding of the bankers’ clerk, he v r as made answerable 
for a supposed warranty of the 15th of September, when, if one 
had really been given at any time, it must have been on the 10th, 
when the horse was sold, and when even, according to the evidence 
of the plaintiff’s own witnesses, he might have been perfectly 
sound. He then went on to say, that, agreeably to his instructions, 
the horse was. in point of fact, perfectly sound when he was de- 
livered, according to the instructions of the plaintiff, to the trainer 
at Lewes ; that the malady must have come on suddenly, either 
from the change of stable or some other cause ; and that therefore 
the defendant was not liable for a breach of warranty. 
The groom who took the horse from Chatham to Lewes was 
examined, and he proved that the horse appeared quite well during 
the journey between the two places; and that on the following 
morning, after his arrival at Lewes, he cantered him for about an 
hour upon the downs, and did not observe any thing the matter 
with him. Some other witnesses were also examined in support 
of the statement made by the learned Sergeant. 
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £112, that sum in- 
cluding some expenses that had been incurred by the plaintiff in 
doctoring the horse prior to his death. 
Morning Chronicle. 
GETHING V. JAMES. 
This was an action brought to recover the value of a horse 
warranted to be sound by the defendant at the time he sold it to 
the plaintiff. The defendant by his plea denied that the horse 
was unsound at the time of sale, or, if unsound, that he gave the 
customary warranty. 
Mr. Humphrey , Q. C., and Mr. Waddington , appeared as counsel 
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Whitehurst , Q. C., and Mr. Macaulay , 
for the defendant. 
The plaintiff, Mr. Gething, is an extensive horse-dealer, residing 
at Grantham, and the defendant carries on the same business, on 
a respectable scale, at Nottingham. On the 14th of January, 1846 
(being Nottingham fair), the defendant sold to the plaintiff a bay 
horse for £100, and at the time of payment the usual warrant of 
soundness was said to have been given. At the time of the sale 
the plaintiff and other witnesses noticed that the horse exhibited 
