VET E 11 1 N A It Y JUR ISP RUDENCE. 
275 
about 100 miles from Horncastle, in the care of one of those mi- 
gratory animals who pick up an uncertain livelihood by hanging 
about fairs, and undertaking such jobs as chance may throw in 
their way. Up to this time there did not appear to have been 
any perceptible unsoundness ; but in about four days afterwards, 
when Mr. Marriott on his homeward journey overtook his new nag, 
some four or five miles from its destination, and it was so lame as to 
be scarcely able to crawl. An action was brought against Saun- 
derson, the present plaintiff, who was advised to succumb, and 
proceedings were stayed on payment of costs and refunding of the 
purchase-money. Saunderson, who only had possession of the 
horse, it will be remembered, for a few hours, then brought his 
action against Harrison, for the recovery of the purchase-money, 
and the costs in the case of Marriot v. Saunderson, and twenty 
weeks’ keep, at ten shillings per week. 
The first witness called on the part of the plaintiff was Mr. 
Richard Marriott, examined by Mr. Gunning: — I live near Brain- 
tree, Essex. In August last, I was at Horncastle fair, where I 
saw the plaintiff, Mr. Saunderson, from whom, on the 18th, I 
purchased the bay gelding, the subject of this action, for £ 31 , 
receiving with him the warranty given by Mr. Harrison. Next 
day I sent the horse home, with three others : he was taken 
about twenty miles that day, but I did not see him again until I 
overtook the man who had the care of him, about five miles from 
my own house, four or five days afterwards : he was then ex- 
ceedingly lame on one fore leg. About the 27th of August l wrote 
to Mr. Harrison to the purport that the horse was unsound, and 
that, in all probability, Mr. Saunderson would return it, and 
bring an action for the recovery of his money. I received no 
reply to that letter. I afterwards wrote two letters to Mr. 
Saunderson, to whom I returned the horse on the 21st of Sep- 
tember, and brought an action against him for £31. During 
the time the horse was in my possession he was very lame ; he 
got considerably better, and at length was able to travel to Cam- 
bridge, where the plaintiff’ in this action lives. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Andrews . — The plaintiff lives on the 
Newmarket road, Cambridge. I do not know the defendant. 
I first saw the horse at an inn, at Horncastle, in company with 
the plaintiff’, on the 18th of August: he was brought out of the 
stable, and both the seller and myself trotted and galloped him 
up and down several times, and did not discover him to be in the 
least lame. After purchasing the horse, I left it in charge of a 
man, whose name l do not know, and he started next day with 
it and three others towards my residence. The man was well 
known as one who gets his living by attending fairs, and taking 
horses home. When I saw the horse near my own house he was 
