118 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
ant stated that at each interview with the plaintiff he told 
him he should buy the horse to the best of his judgment, 
and take him with all his faults ; that when the money was 
paid he positively refused to give a warranty, but said he 
never knew him to be unsound. He had worked the horse 
for some time before, and never saw any trace of roaring or 
any other unsoundness. The defendant’s two brothers and 
his w r ife confirmed his version. 
Mr. Sparks , a veterinary surgeon at Romford, said he had 
seen the horse frequently before the sale, but never saw any 
trace of roaring. 
Professor Spooner , principal professor of the Veterinary 
College, stated that the horse was now a confirmed roarer, 
but he could not say that he was so in February. The 
disease was hereditary. 
Mr. Justice Erie having summed up, 
The jury retired, and, after being absent for some time, 
returned and found that the defendant did warrant, and that 
the horse was unsound. 
Verdict for the plaintiff — damages £2 5. 
Pitman v. Copus 
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Hawkins were counsel for the 
plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. J. Browne appeared 
for the defendant. 
The declaration stated, that the defendant, being a livery- 
stable keeper, the plaintiff had delivered to him a horse 
to be kept in a certain stall, but the defendant had placed 
the horse in another stall which had been occupied by a 
horse infected with glanders, by reason of which the 
plaintiff’s horse caught the disease, and it became necessary 
to destroy it. 
It appeared that the plaintiff is an insurance broker at 
Lloyd’s. In June last he purchased the horse for £40, and 
told the defendant, who is a livery-stable keeper in the 
Hornsey Road, that he would place it with him, as he under- 
stood he had built a new stable. On the 18th of June 
plaintiff rode into defendant’s yard and was shown a stable 
with three loose boxes : the further one was occupied by a 
horse belonging to a Mr. Goddard, and defendant said he 
would place plaintiff’s horse in the centre box. It was agreed 
that the terms should be £l Is. a week. The plaintiff knew r 
that Mr. Goddard’s horse had been unwell, and asked de- 
fendant how it was getting on ; defendant replied that it had 
