VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
239 
Anderson v. Oldacre. 
The action was brought upon the warranty of a horse which 
proved unsound, and to recover the value of its keep after the 
unsoundness had been ‘ascertained. The defendant, by his plea, 
admitted that the horse was unsound at the time of the sale, but 
denied that he had given any warranty. From the evidence 
adduced, it appeared that the plaintiff, who is a large horse-dealer 
in Piccadilly, and who has also a farm for hunters at Old Oak- 
common, on the Uxbridge-road, had an interview 7 on the 1st of 
October last with the defendant, who is a saddler in the city, 
and also occasionally dabbles in horse-dealing, when proposals 
were made by the defendant to sell the plaintiff three horses 
which had been brought to the stables at Old Oak-common. 
One of these horses was called “ The Don,” and another, “ Top- 
thorn,” — designations intended, it is conjectured, to convey to 
the minds of the initiated a correct idea of their superior capa- 
bilities as hunters. The third, a bay horse, which formed the 
subject of the present action, according to the evidence pre- 
sented on the part of the plaintiff, was an anonymous animal; and 
it was finally left in doubt, upon the whole case, whether it was 
entitled to rejoice in the appellation of “ Rhinoceros,” or “ The 
Vet.,” which latter name appeared to have been bestowed upon 
it in consequence of the defendant having purchased it from a 
Mr. Parker, a veterinary surgeon, residing at Birmingham. The 
plaintiff, however, declined having any thing to do with “ Top- 
thorn,” as the defendant said that he would not warrant him 
sound, but “The Don” he agreed to purchase for 100 guineas ; 
and the conversation then turned upon the bay horse, or “ The 
Vet.,” a fine-looking animal, but very much swollen in his legs. 
The plaintiff’ asked, “ What can I do with a horse with sucTTlegs 
as these V* to which the defendant replied, that the horse had 
had a dose of physic, and was out of condition, but that, when 
he got into condition again, his legs would be “quite fine,” 
adding, “ I bought him of Parker, at Birmingham : you know 
Parker; he warranted him sound to me, and I will warrant him 
to you.” The plaintiff finally agreed to give 100 guineas for 
“The Vet.,” and great care was taken of him. He had no work 
to do, but regular walking exercise was given him, bandages and 
hot water were liberally applied, and his legs were hand-rubbed; 
but they still remained in statu quo, and, in fact, more nearly 
resembled the legs of the pachydermatous animal whose name 
he was said at one time to have borne, than those of a hunter. 
Complaints were made to the defendant on the subject, and on 
