VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
59 
ever, the jury should be satisfied that such words were used, 
then he would submit that they did not amount to a warranty 
in law. Thirdly, that the beasts were sound at the time of 
sale, and indeed beasts of the age of those sold to plaintiff 
(yearlings) were not subject to the disease in question. 
The defendant was then called, who swore that he did not 
say the beasts were “ all healthy and right/’ 
A Mr. Attenborough, from Derbyshire, proved that he sold 
some yearlings to defendant about the 15th June last; and 
other breeders proved that some young beasts, belonging to 
defendant, and which they inspected about the 23d June, 
appeared healthy ; they were informed that these beasts were 
going to Boughton Fair. 
Mr, Small , in replying, stated that drowning men caught at 
straws, and the defendant, finding he had no defence upon 
the merits had attempted to throw discredit upon the 
testimony of a man like Mr. C. Bennett, whose word was 
beyond suspicion and his evidence altogether unbiassed ; and 
yet they were asked by their verdict to stamp this most 
respectable witness as utterly unworthy of credit, but he (Mr. 
Small) had no fear of such a result. As to the legal effect of 
the words proved both by Mr. Bennett and the plaintiff to 
have been used by the defendant, it was only necessary to 
state that in order to constitute a warranty, all that was 
required was that words should be spoken, the ordinary sig- 
nification of which would imply that the thing sold was 
sound ; if the words used by the defendant did not amount 
to that they had no meaning at all. As to the defendant’s 
statement that the beasts were sound at the time of sale, he 
would submit that the defendant had signally failed in proving 
this ; indeed he had only proved that some of his young beasts 
appeared healthy some days before the fair, but their identity 
with those purchased by the plaintiff was not only not proved, 
but the weight of defendant’s evidence was quite the other 
way; and he (Mr. Small) would only remind them of the 
evidence of Mr. Powell, supported by the experience of Mr. 
Bond, M.R.C.V.S., the inspector of 12,000 head of cattle, 
uncontradicted, be it remembered, by a single witness on the 
part of the defence, for the defendant had not dared to put 
his own veterinary surgeon in the box. Surely something 
further was needed to satisfy them of the incontrovertible 
testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, and he left the matter 
in the hands of the jury with the utmost satisfaction, for he 
felt certain that the result of their deliberations would vin- 
dicate the ends of justice by a verdict for his client for the 
full amount claimed. * 
