VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
459 
cated these facts to the defendant, whom he met at a fair in the 
country. What passed between the plaintiff and defendant at this 
interview was one of the matters in dispute ; but it appeared that 
the plaintiff undertook to try and sell the horse again as sound. The 
plaintiff accordingly sold the horse a second time to a Mr. Gray, a 
horse-dealer, in Oxford Street, for £85, and Gray returned the 
animal shortly after as unsound. The defendant having refused 
to take back the horse, he was ultimately offered to Dixon, the 
first purchaser, for £44, and is now in Dixon’s possession. The 
defence was twofold — that the animal was sound at the time 
the defendant warranted, namely, on the 17th of August ; and 
even if the animal wjis unsound, that the plaintiff had subse- 
quently agreed to accept £23 as a compensation for the unsound- 
ness of the horse in question, and a black mare which the de- 
fendant had sold him, and which turned out to be a roarer. In 
support of the defendant’s case, three persons were examined, all 
of whom were well accquainted with the horse before the sale, and 
they all testified that he had never exhibited any symptoms of un- 
soundness, and was admired at agricultural meetings and fairs in 
Yorkshire. Against this testimony the plaintiff relied mainly on 
the evidence of Mr. Spooner, who said that the disease must 
have been existing some months before the 7th of September, 
when he first examined the horse. The payment of £23 by the 
defendant to the plaintiff subsequently was admitted ; but that 
sum was said to have been paid exclusively in reference to the un- 
soundness of the black mare, and not of the horse in question. 
The Jury, after retiring and considering the matter for some 
time, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. — Damages £27. 
[Although the next trial is but indirectly connected with the 
veterinary profession, there are few of our readers who will not 
feel some interest in the perusal of it. It increases the letter- 
press of the present number, but not the expense of it to 
any of our friends.] 
THE GURNEY AFFAIR. 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Saturday, July 2. 
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Chief Baron Abinger and a 
Special Jury.) 
Th ORNTON V. BYNG AND OTHERS. 
The court was crowded at an early hour this morning to hear the trial of 
this cause, which arose out of circumstances connected with “the Gurney 
affair.” Many of the leading men on the turf were present, among whom 
