VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
553 
entered upon, we have an earnest of their completion by 
those who will hereafter take our places, for with them the 
conditions will necessarily be even more auspicious and the 
result certain. 
V eterlnary J ur isprudence. 
Bromyard County Court. 
(Before Benjamin Parham, Esq.) 
Patrick Gilmour v. James Lucas . — An action to recover 
£13 10$., being the difference in price from the resale of an 
unsound horse purchased by plaintiff from defendant, and 
other expenses attending such resale. Mr. Bray conducted 
the plaintiff’s case, and Mr. Bartley, of Worcester, that of 
the defendant. 
Plaintiff deposed to being a farmer, residing within two 
miles of Bromyard. In the spring of last year he lost two 
horses, and it was necessary that he should replace one. The 
horses died from kicks. On the 21st of March he was taken 
by Samuel Mutlow, farrier, Bromyard, to defendant’s house 
to look at the horse. Lucas said the horse had gone to the 
Clee Hill for coal, and defendant would send the horse over 
next day. George Lucas, the son, brought the animal to 
Bromyard fair, and after some parley was purchased by Mr. 
Gilmour for £l6, George Lucas warranting the horse “whole, 
sound , and free from blemish f the warranty being repeated 
several times. Mr. Crawford was present. After the pur- 
chase of the horse, plaintiff gave defendant a check on the 
Bromyard Branch Bank of the National Provincial Bank. 
Lucas again repeated, in the presence of Crawford and 
Mutlow, that the horse was all right, and plaintiff said that 
as Mutlow was present, he should not require a written 
warranty. Next day, or a day or two after, deponent’s wag- 
goner mentioned to him that the horse was nearly blind. 
Plaintiff saw defendant on the 6th of May, and told him that 
he had been advised by Mr. Eckley, before taking proceed- 
ings, to request him (Lucas) to fetch away the horse which 
he had sold him for a sound one. Defendant replied , u Why 
didn’t you send him back sooner.” Gilmour observed that 
he had seen his (defendant’s) son in Bromyard, and told him 
the horse was unsound ; the latter said he should have the 
animal again. On the 17th of May plaintiff took the horse 
to Mr. Hughes, veterinary surgeon, Leominster ; he exa- 
mined the animal, and pronounced him unsound. Next day 
(May 22d) he was placed at livery at the Hop-pole Inn, 
xxviii. 71 
