494 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
plaintiff and his son were so well pleased with his paces, 
that, after some little negotiation, they agreed to give <£100 
for him, the defendant warranting him sound. On that 
occasion he was ridden both by the plaintiffs son and the 
defendant’s son, and they both took him over a fence. 
The plaintiff and his son observed that the horse “dropped,” 
but they supposed, and the defendant’s son said, that it must 
be carelessness. They also called attention to a swelling 
above the knee of the off fore leg, but young Mr. Battams 
explained that he had been “ thorned,” but that it was of no 
consequence. The horse was accordingly sent to North- 
ampton, and was ridden out for a couple of miles on the 
following day, the 19th of December. On the 22d he was 
taken out hunting, and ridden eight miles to cover ; but the 
running was not severe. On the 26th he was again taken 
out, and again on the 1st of January. On the latter day he 
fell in taking a fence, having, as his rider, Mr. Hewitt, jun., 
supposed, crossed his legs ; but he came down on his near 
side, and did not, at all events at the time, appear to have 
hurt himself, for he got up immediately, and carried Mr. 
Hewitt throughout the day’s run. In the evening, however, 
Mr. Hewitt observed that there was a slight stiffness in the 
off fore leg, and, the horse afterwards becoming decidedly 
lame, Mr. Garrett, the veterinary surgeon, was called in, and 
pronounced him to be unsound. Thereupon the defendant 
was requested to take him back; but, that having been 
declined, he was afterwards put up to auction, and sold for 
£49 7 5. The present action upon the warranty was then 
commenced to recover the difference of price and expenses ; 
and for the purposes of the trial the horse had been submitted 
to the judgment of many eminent veterinary surgeons, who 
were examined as witnesses on each side. The two chief 
points of dispute were these : — The plaintiff’s witnesses stated 
that the horse had corns on both feet, and particularly on the 
off fore foot a bad corn, which must have been there at the 
time of the sale. The defendant’s witnesses, to the number of 
nine, swore that they had often seen the horse’s feet, and that 
it had no corns. The plaintiff’s witnesses also attributed 
the lameness to the swelling above the knee noticed at the 
time of the sale; while the defendant’s witnesses deposed 
that the injury which had occasioned that swelling had 
been completely cured, and that the lameness arose from 
the fall which the horse met with on the 1st of January. 
Mr. Mavor, gave strong evidence on this point. He had 
observed on the off fore leg below the knee symptoms of the 
recent formation of a splint , and he explained that, although 
