26 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
In reply to this case the following defence was set up : — Wit- 
nesses were called to shew that from the time the horse was foaled 
he never had such a disease as laminitis, which from its painful 
character could not have escaped observation. The farmer who 
reared the animal till the age of two years, and the defendant’s 
groom, under whose care it remained from that time until sold to 
the plaintiff, both swore that it had never suffered from any com- 
plaint of the kind. The farrier by whom it was shod, and others, 
deposed to the fact, that the structure of its fore feet had never 
undergone any alteration, nor was its shoeing different from that 
of other horses. It was also proved that the horse had been hunted 
for two seasons, sometimes with the fox-hounds, but more frequently 
with the harriers. The witnesses called to that point denied most 
strenuously that he had ever been lame while in the defendant’s 
possession, except on the occasion referred to in the plaintiff’s case, 
when he went to Northallerton ; on that occasion lameness being 
produced by a hurt in the back sinew of the near fore foot, caused 
by the prick of a thorn in hunting. Evidence was also adduced 
to shew that when the horse was sold at Dixon’s Repository, in 
December last, by the plaintiff, he was in wretched condition ; that 
he was then purchased back again by an agent of the defendant’s 
for fifty guineas; that he was lame at that time from having chapped 
heels ; but having recovered from this, was ridden in town till the 
month of July without shewing any sign of the unsoundness al- 
ledged by the plaintiff. It was further stated in evidence, that 
the horse is now again at the defendant’s residence at Durham, 
and that he has not been lame since his return. The only scientific 
evidence produced by the defendant was that of Mr. Mayhew, 
formerly demonstrator at the Royal Veterinary College, who stated 
his opinion that a horse which had suffered from acute inflamma- 
tion of the lamina could not be hunted. 
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up the case to the Jury, 
entered at great length into the evidence adduced on either side, 
and concluded by directing them to find their verdict according as, 
from what they had heard, they believed the horse to be in a sound 
or unsound state when bought by the plaintiff. 
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff — damages 
£99.. 6s.. 6d. 
* Jones v . Chew. 
In the Court of Exchequer, an action was recently brought 
by Mr. Jones, tobacconist, Moorgate-street, against Mr. Chew, 
livery-stable-keeper, in Moorfields. The plaintiff having occasion 
