210 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
this amounted to unsoundness; pressure on the part gave pain : 
the ointment I gave plaintiff could have done no harm; it might 
have been an injury of two, three, or four months’ standing; I am 
convinced I could not remedy the injury 
Cross-examined. — When I first examined him, I found no ap- 
pearance of external injury nor swelling; he could put his foot 
down, although the ligaments at the termination of the large mus- 
cle were injured. I can’t fix the day I saw him, as I bnly received 
half-a-guinea for examining him, and did not put it down ; I think 
he might work under such an injury; he might have worked on 
for ten days, but it wouldn’t have been comfortable for him. 
On re-examination. — Any increased injury would make him 
more lame. I don’t think it could have occurred between the 4th 
of October and the time I first saw it. 
By the Court. — I can’t give an opinion whether the injury 
happened before the 6th of August last ; I can’t form an opinion 
whether the seeds of the disease had been there before the 6th of 
August. 
Jeremiah Stickland. — I live at Portesham ; on the 6th of Au- 
gust last, heard defendant warrant the horse sound in every respect; 
have seen the horse to-day; I consider the difference in value from 
the injury more than half. 
On cross-examination. — Did not see the horse move on the 
6th August; defendant did not add, “as far as I know;” the 
plaintiff keeps two horses. 
Job Gill. — 1 live at Radipole ; saw the horse at Martinstown 
fair on the 23d November, and again this morning ; have had great 
experience in horses for forty years ; I think the blow is an old 
one; I think the horse lessened in value £10; a sort of gristle was 
grown over the shoulder. 
Henry Greening. — I am a blacksmith at Stafford ; at August 
fair saw plaintiff about four o’clock, and the horse, after he had 
bought him ; saw something peculiar in his way of standing. 1 
think if sound he would be worth £27 ; it was not now worth more 
than £10. 
Several letters were put in, admitted, and read, from the plaintiff 
and his attorney to the defendant, &c., offering to leave the matter 
to arbitration, but which was declined. 
This ended the plaintiff’s case, and Mr. Manfield objected that 
he could not recover for the keep of the horse, the horse not having 
been returned or tendered. The Court allowed the objection. He 
also objected that he could not recover the price of the horse, as he 
received pay for the work done by the horse ; but the Judge did not 
allow this objection. 
The warranty was here admitted, and for the defence was called, 
