VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
213 
Court of Exchequer, Monday , Feb. 18, 1850. 
{Sittings at Nisi Prius , before the Chief Baron, at Guildhall.) 
Higgs v . Thrale. 
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Lush were counsel for the plaintiff ; 
Mr. Bramwell appeared for the defendant. 
This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover £25 
under the following circumstances : — The plaintiff is a veterinary 
surgeon, and one day in August last he met the defendant, who 
is also a veterinary surgeon and horse-dealer, at Aldridge’s Repo- 
sitory, when a talk came on touching a certain chestnut mare of 
the defendant, which he said he thought would “just do to carry 
his friend Mr. Higgs after the hounds.” In a few days after, 
Mr Higgs, his wife, and daughter, went down to the defendant’s 
premises at Croydon, where they saw the mare, which, it should 
be observed, was avowedly blind of one eye. After a little dis- 
cussion as to the condition of the other eye, and a trial at the trunk 
of a tree, the plaintiff agreed to swop his brown horse, valued at 
£19, with £6 in, for the mare, on condition that the defendant 
would “ warrant her to be a good hunter, and to have one good 
eye.” Both these stipulations the defendant readily undertook; but 
he wanted £10, and there the parties broke off, the plaintiff saying 
that, if the defendant would take his offer, he might send the mare. 
In a few days accordingly the defendant sent her, and, the money 
being paid, she passed into the possession of the plaintiff, who, 
who, after keeping her till the season began, sent her down to 
Croydon on the 2d of October. When she got into the field, how- 
ever, she did not come up to the expectations formed of her ; for 
she was very hot, and jumped at some fences long before she 
reached them, and rushed in a headlong way through others, as if 
she was ignorant of their existence. Upon this, Mr. Higgs got 
off, and remonstrated with Mr. Thrale, who was also in the field. 
The defendant, however, attributed the failure of the animal to the 
cowardice of his rider, and, mounting her himself, put her at a fence, 
through which she bolted as she had done before. After this the 
defendant dismounted also, and, scrambling through the next fence 
on foot, made her follow him over it “ in hand,” and, then turning 
to the plaintiff, said, “ See how she can leap.” Mr. Higgs, how- 
ever, was by no means satisfied with his bargain, and, finding that 
“ it was no go,” sent back the mare, and, discovering that she was 
in fact going blind of cataract, returned her to the defendant, who 
ultimately sold her at Tattersall’s in Mr. Higgs’s name for eleven 
guineas. Besides these facts, it was proved that at the time of the 
sale the defendant said, a peculiar appearance about the “good 
eye” was attributable to a blow or a rub from the halter ; but after 
