584 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.) 
Anderson v. Robson. — Case of Warranty. 
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Unthank appeared for the plaintiff ; and 
Mr. Martin and Mr. Udall for the defendant. 
This was an action for debt, to recover the sum of £95 for a 
horse sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant 
pleaded, “ never indebted.” 
Mr. George Anderson, the plaintiff, lives at Benwell, near New- 
castle ; and Mr. Robert Robson, is a horse-dealer at Lobley-hill. 
The horse in question had, in 1845, been purchased by the plaintiff 
from the defendant. It was then a young horse, and not in good 
condition, and the price then given was not equal to what it was 
sold for to the defendant. On the 12th of July last the defendant 
went to the plaintiff’s, and wished to look at the horse. He rode 
and examined it, and then began to bargain about the price. The 
plaintiff asked £100 for it, and the defendant offered £85. The 
defendant at length agreed to give £95; and sent his servant for 
it the same afternoon, who told the plaintiff that he thought the 
horse was lame. The plaintiff replied, that if that was his opi- 
nion, he had better not take the horse, but if he took him away he 
would not take him back. The servant accordingly left it. Some 
conversation afterwards passed between the plaintiff and defendant, 
and the horse was taken by Mr. Anderson to Messrs. Plews and 
King, veterinary surgeons, for examination. These gentlemen at 
first thought him sound, but afterwards gave a certificate that the 
horse laboured under incipient spavin, and was consequently 
unsound. Mr. Anderson sent the horse to Mr. Robson’s, and that 
gentleman returned it to Mr. Anderson, who refused to receive it 
He then sent it to the livery stables of Messrs. Plews and King, 
where it remained until expenses amounting to £17 had been in- 
curred, when it was sold by auction for £31 to Mr. Cookson. 
The defence was, that the plaintiff had warranted the horse 
sound, and the animal having proved to be spavined, the defendant 
could not be called on to take him ; and Mr. Martin further de- 
nied that the defendant had ever, in fact, accepted the horse at all. 
The evidence, however, as to the warranty, went only to shew 
that the plaintiff had said, on the defendant making inquiry, that 
the horse was sound “ as far as he knew,” and it did not appear 
that the plaintiff had previously discovered any thing the matter 
with him. 
The Jury found that there had been no warranty, .and conse- 
quently returned a verdict for the full amount, £95. 
The Times, August 1th. 
