48 
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
The jury did not trouble the learned judge to sum up the evi- 
dence, but gave a verdict for the plaintiff. 
Many thoughts, but not one dishonourable to the witnesses, 
press on our minds while we record this strangely conflicting 
evidence. These discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses on 
mere points of medical observation and skill, should not exist : 
they would not occur in any point of human medical jurispru- 
dence. We will return to this subject very shortly. 
ROARING. 
Brown v . Moore. 
This was an action brought to recover the sum of £60, for a 
horse that had been sold by the defendant to the plaintiff*. The 
horse was at the time of sale known to be a little affected in the 
wind, in other words, to be what is called a “ roarer,” when 
it was gallopped rapidly ; but it was verbally warranted as 
free from this defect when it was only trotted. The plaintiff, 
therefore, paid for it a sum of £80. On his first trial of the 
horse, after the sale, he found him to be as much a roarer in 
trotting as in gallopping ; he therefore wanted to return it, but 
the defendant refused to accept it, and novy meant to set up 
“ a purchase with all faults”, a thing highly unlikely to happen 
when a man paid such a sum as £80 for a horse. 
Mr. Rosson gave the following evidence : — I am acquainted 
with the plaintiff. He is a draper, at Shadwell. In September 
last he requested me to go with him in search of a horse. We 
saw a horse at East’s livery stables : a man named Dossiter, 
Brown, and myself, were there. Defendant’s horse was shewn out. 
The price that the horse originally fetched was named to the 
plaintiff; it was 190 guineas. The horse was an exceedingly hand- 
some animal. He was told that the horse had the influenza, and 
that it was not fit to proceed to work. Plaintiff saw the horse in 
double harness ; he offered £70 for it "-this was after it had 
been tried. Dossiter said that he considered him to be a roarer. 
It was said at what pace that disease exhibited itself. It was 
casually remarked that, if the plaintiff wanted the horse at slow 
paces, it would not be observed. The plaintiff said he did not 
want the horse to gallop. I am not aware that any particular 
observation was then made by Dossiter : it was after this con- 
versation that the bargain was made. It was for £80. 
Cross examined . — He first offered £70. He observed that the 
