234 
VETERINARY JURISPRU DENCE. 
a little tightness of breathing, and a slight discharge from the 
nostrils. The defendant, in reply, said that it was only a slight 
cold, — that the horse was “all right;” and the warranty having- 
been entered in the plaintiff’s memorandum-book, the horse, upon 
purchase, was removed to the stable of the Spread Eagle Inn, 
where the plaintiff had other horses standing. Upon the horse 
being removed to Grantham the next day, the animal exhibited 
symptoms of unsoundness, and on the third day it was placed 
under the care of a veterinary surgeon. The plaintiff wrote to 
the defendant, stating the condition of the animal, but expressing 
a hope that, as he fed well, he would soon be better. This letter 
was written on the 23d of January. It was stated, however, by 
a Mr. Urcock, a gentleman in the plaintiff’s employ, that the 
horse “ blew thick” in the wind, had a discharge from the nos- 
trils, and would not feed. Mr. Hardy, a veterinary surgeon, of 
Grantham, was called in, the horse was blistered on the throat and 
side, and had a seton placed in his chest. In time, the horse 
gradually became better, and, being “got ready,” he was brought 
to Lincoln fair on the 20th of April. When he arrived in that 
city the old symptoms of unsoundness returned : he was removed 
to the stables of Mr. Richardson, a veterinary surgeon, and died 
in the course of the same week. A post-mortem examination of 
the animal took place, and the veterinary surgeons (more espe- 
cially Mr. Richardson, of Lincoln) gave it as their opinion that 
the cause of death was a chronic affection of the lungs, part of 
which were rotten, and completely consumed away. The disease, 
according to these gentlemen, must have existed a considerable 
time. 
The witnesses for the plaintiff were cross-examined, with the 
view of shewing that the horse might have caught cold, or the 
disease with which it was afterwards afflicted might have been 
caught or communicated at the Spread Eagle stables, in Notting- 
ham, where it was removed after its purchase by the plaintiff ; 
and that on more than one occasion, while at Grantham, the horse 
had been ridden out by the plaintiff’s servants to meet the hounds. 
These witnesses, however, although closely pressed by Mr. White- 
hurst, denied that they had ever galloped the horse, or ever 
boasted that the colt was a “ hard and capital fencer.” 
For the defence it was contended that, at the time of the sale, 
the colt was perfectly sound; that, if it coughed at Nottingham, it 
was in consequence of being exposed to cold near an open window 
in the stables of the Spread Eagle Inn, where it was removed by 
the servant of the plaintiff ; that they had no evidence as to the 
treatment which the colt received from the person who remov- 
