VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
451 
able to discover that he was lame. A groom would discover that 
the horse appeared lame, and so would any one accustomed to a 
horse. 
Augustus Crooke. — I am a veterinary surgeon at Bungay. I 
examined the fore feet of the horse, and found one of them unsound. 
It is my opinion that the disease had existed a considerable time. 
Cross-examined. — I have not seen a horse get better of the 
disease. I think that when a good and useful horse is taken in 
time, he might be passed off by a dealer to a tradesman or small 
salesman. I do not think this horse will ever be made sound; but 
by being taken great care of, he may be put into a cart and do a 
little work, or sometimes into a gig, though I should not like to 
drive him. 
Mr. Spelman, jun. auctioneer, of Norwich. — I sold this horse 
on the 5th Jan. The animal fetched £18. 
Was he sold well! If he was unsound, he was. I sold him 
to Mr. W. Butcher, of this city. 
Mr. W \ Butcher } jun. of Norwich. — I bought this horse. Mr. 
Tom Saul said it was a nice sort of horse, so I bought him. Saul 
rode him once, or his nephew. I then understood the horse did 
not go well — that he was unsound. 
What did you do with him ! — Sent him to Attleborough. I 
did not warrant the horse : I got rid of the animal at once. 
The Judge. — What is Attleborough ! 
Witness. — A large Repository sale. 
Cross-examined. — I know Sayers. He did not say the horse 
was good, but Mr. Clarke said he was a very good one, and I was 
not to be deceived by the cheapness of price. I found Mr. Clarke 
a fond deceiver, for I lost £5 by the horse. 
Tom Saul. — I was present when the horse was bought. I rode 
him on the following Tuesday. He was unsound in both fore feet. 
Cross-examined. — How do you know he was unsound! Why, 
any body not an idiot could see that. 
A letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, dated the 1st of 
December, 1849, stating that the horse had been returned to him 
as unsound — that he had returned the purchase money to Sir E. 
Travers, to whom he had given the defendants’ guarantee, and 
expressing a confident hope that the defendant would not allow 
him to be a loser ; and another, from the defendant in reply, in 
which he stated that he should have no further correspondence 
about the horse, that he was sound when purchased by the 
plaintiff, and that if he was then unsound, it had been caused by 
the plaintiff or the persons who had had him, were then put in 
and read. 
This was the case for the plaintiff. 
