352 VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE-BROWN v. ELKIN. 
The ridiculous conclusion arrived at in this trial has arisen 
from the palpable neglect of making the necessary distinction 
between cause and effect. If this had been sufficiently impressed 
upon the attention of the Court, the verdict must have been dif- 
ferent. 
Unsoundness is the cause. Lameness is the effect . — A horse 
may be unsound without being lame, and lame without being un- 
sound. Every departure from a healthy and normal structure 
which produces liability to lameness is unsoundness. This, then, 
is the cause. 
Lameness is either an expression of pain, or an alteration of 
natural and healthy action, in consequence of mechanical disad- 
vantage in motion. This is the effect. 
Lameness destroys the value and usefulness of the animal ; but 
the unsoundness I have mentioned may or may not terminate 
in lameness ; hence the necessity of a warranty. The veterinary 
surgeon who gave his opinion on the trial (I am writing in utter 
ignorance of his name) said, in that guarded and careful way in 
which most veterinary surgeons do give their evidence (notwith- 
standing the sneers of Counsellor Henn on a late trial) “ That 
curby hocks were not in themselves unsoundness, though they 
were a proof of a liability and tendency to unsoundness, and were a 
sufficient defect to warrant the return of any animal.” Now, what 
was intended here ? Why, that there was proof of a liability and 
tendency to lameness. “ The sufficient defect ” / / the unsoundness, 
did exist ! ! But the Court confounded the one with the other. I 
would have stated it then, and I do it now publicly (relying on 
the correctness of the evidence as to the formation of the hocks), 
that the horse was in reality as unsound at the time of the sale 
of him to Mr. Brown as he was when the subsequent lameness 
made it evident to every one. The abnormal structure existed 
then as a cause ; and it is quite clear that Mr. Brown took a war- 
ranty from the seller to guard himself against the probable conse- 
quences which might be the effect of this abnormal structure, and 
which in reality terminated, as he suspected it might do, in lame- 
ness. 
I have said that “ a horse may be lame without being un- 
sound.” I will adduce an instance. Take the soundest horse in 
the world, and wedge a stone under the shoe, and you will have 
a lame horse ; that is, he will exhibit pain and an alteration of 
his action; but no sophistry could induce the opinion that he was 
necessarily an unsound animal. And, on the other hand, in the 
case now before us, at the time of sale there was unsoundness of 
formation, producing the liability to lameness without any ex- 
pression of pain being evinced, though there were sufficient proofs 
s 
