296 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
We will not ask in which profession an adherence to truth is 
most likely to be found, one in which it is the duty of its mem- 
bers to guard their employers from imposition and fraud, or 
another whose business and whose triumph it occasionally is to 
make the worse appear the better argument ; but we tell that 
gentleman, that although the nature and the duties of our profes- 
sion place many of us in a station of life somewhat inferior to him, 
there are those among us, and their numbers are rapidly increasing, 
who will not yield to Mr. Henn, or any of his brethren, in scien- 
tific attainments, gentlemanly conduct, or honourable feeling. — Y.] 
[The following application to the Court of Exchequer possesses 
some interest. We are much inclined somewhat to differ from 
the learned Judge. Some of our readers will probably favour 
us with their opinion. — Y.] 
Court of Exchequer, Tuesday, April 20. 
( Sittings in Banco before Lord Abinger.) 
Brown v. Elkin. 
Mr. Balgui/ moved, in this case, for a new trial. The plaintiff 
is a veterinary surgeon, and brought this action to recover the 
value of a hunter, sold to him by the defendant for 60 guineas, 
with a warranty. It appeared that at the sale the plaintiff* 
gave his opinion that the hocks of the animal were suspicious ; 
on which the defendant said, “ Oh, I will warrant him sound." 7 
The plaintiff’ then said, “ Why, he has been sold already, and 
returned to you. ” To which the defendant replied, “ Yes, he was 
returned, but for being restiff, not for any unsoundness.” On 
this assurance the plaintiff* bought the horse, which, after hunt- 
ing three times, threw out a curb. This, however, being reduced 
through the united effects of the long frost and fomentations, the 
plaintiff* hunted him the fourth time, when he again became lame, 
and, being sold as unsound, this action was brought to recover 
the loss sustained thereby. At the trial it was proved that the 
horse had been, in fact, returned by the purchaser alluded to in 
consequence of the suspicious character of his hocks, which the 
plaintiff* himself remarked ; but a veterinary surgeon, who was 
called to prove his unsoundness, said, in answer to a question 
from Lord Abinger, who tried the cause, that “curby hocks” 
were not in themselves an unsoundness, though they were proof 
of a liability and tendency to unsoundness, and were a sufficient 
defect to warrant the return of any animal. In consequence of 
this his Lordship intimated to the Jury that the sole question 
being, whether the horse was unsound at the time of the sale— 
