VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 235 
Re-examined : — I was appointed by Mr. J. Nelson and the other proprie- 
tors as driver. 
John Allsebrook, examined by Mr. Platt: — I am groom to Mr. Gurdon; 
I recollect his buying a horse of Mr. Garrod, which we have rode and drove 
in double-harness ; I have rode it as postillion. It is not lame, and never has 
been till the other day, when he was kicked by another horse. He always 
went perfectly sound, and did his work well; I have driven him fourteen miles 
on a heavy road, and back the next day, and he then appeared as well as be- 
fore. There was nothing the matter with his feet. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Thesiger: — Mr. Gurdon has had the horse about 
five months. There is a slight place on the hock, but nothing to cause lame- 
ness. It is a showy and valuable horse. There is not the least contraction of 
the fore feet He is not a very fast horse, but he will go ten miles an hour. 
This was the defendant’s case. 
The plaintiff then called witnesses in contradiction. 
J. Saxty, jun., examined by Mr. Thesiger: — I recollect Mr. Garrod over- 
taking me, when I was on the horse, and saying I had got a three-legged 
horse, and it could not go like his. 
William Jemmett Maude, examined by Mr. Thesiger : — I live at Lang- 
ham, and am a county magistrate. On the last day of the July assize I was 
on the Shannon, and observed to Whale that the near leader was lame. He 
said it was lame at times — I am not sure he said “ dotty,” but he said lame 
or “ dotty.” 
Cross-examined by Mr. Platt : — Plaintiff in August told me he was going 
to law about the horse, and then I told him what Whale stated. 
Mr. Platt addressed the jury on this evidence, called in contradiction, and 
was followed by Mr. Thesiger. 
Mr. Justice Patteson said, it was clear the defendant did warrant the horse, 
and the real question between the parties was. Whether the horse was sound? 
It was impossible to reconcile the evidence on both sides. On one side or 
the other some must have stated what they knew to be false — he did not say 
which it was, but that was for the jury to decide. It was attempted to be 
shewn that the horse was not lame in the Shannon coach, oratMr.Gurdon’s ; 
and, therefore, was only lame while in the possession of the plaintiff. That 
could not be true. If they found that the horse really was lame soon after 
it came into his possession, the conclusion would be that it had a spavin. The 
evidence was contradictory ; but they must look to it, and make up their 
minds for themselves which they would believe. 
The jury, after a brief consultation, found for the plaintiff — Damages 
J?38..18s. 
