VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
237 
Mr . John Meredith , veterinary surgeon, of Yockleton, also confirmed Mr. 
Litt’s view of the case in question, as did also Mr. Carless, veterinary 
surgeon, of Stafford, both of whom had carefully examined the mare’s 
feet. 
After a long address from the plaintiff’s advocate, the Judge summed up 
at great length strongly in favour of the view that if any disease, no matter 
how trifling its nature, was in the system at the time of sale, the animal 
must be considered unsound in point of law. The jury, after some delibera- 
tion, found a verdict for the plaintiff , which was received with apparent sur- 
prise by some of the knowing in horseflesh, who had seemed to wait the result 
with much interest. 
ROTHERHAM COUNTY COURT. 
Before W. Smith, Esq. 
BREACH OF WARRANTY. 
Falding V. Jenkinson. 
Mr. Whitfield was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Gould , jun., Sheffield, for the 
defendant. 
The plaintiff was Mr. Francis Falding, wood-agent to Earl Fitzwilliam, 
and the defendant was Mr. Reuben Jenkinson, grocer, Elsecar. The action 
was brought to recover £29 8s., by breach of a warranty given in the 
purchase of a horse on the 11th September last. It appeared, from 
Mr. Whitfields’s opening of the case, that the defendant was the possessor 
of a chesnut horse, which he was desirous of selling. He made known this 
desire to a blacksmith named Chariton. Charlton named the latter to 
Mr. Falding, who very soon afterwards went to see the horse. The first 
words which Mr. Falding used to Mr. Jenkinson were — “ Now, sir, is the 
horse sound, and will you warrant him ? I must have a distinct answer to 
this before I ask the price. Jenkinson replied unhesitatingly, that “the 
horse was as sound as a trout.” Mr. Falding said, “Well, but I should 
like Mr. Peech the veterinary surgeon to see the horse.” Mr. Jenkinson 
said, “ Why it is no use getting Mr. Peech to look at the horse when 
I agree to warant him.” Mr. Falding still said he should like Mr. Peech 
to see the horse, and Mr. Jenkinson then agreed to take the horse over 
to Wentworth on the following morning at a certain hour, for the purpose 
of its being examined. Mr. Jenkinson took the horse, but some hours after 
the time appointed, and so late that Mr. Peech had gone from home, being 
unable to wait any longer. A bargain was, however, struck between the 
parties, the defendant giving a positive warranty, in the presence of wit- 
nesses, that the horse was sound in every respect. The price agreed upon 
was £35. 
Mr. Whitfield stated that he would first prove to the jury that this 
warranty was given, and he would then satisfy them that the horse was 
unsound, and that very likely the defendant himself knew the horse was 
unsound, but whether he knew it or not was of very little consequence in 
the face of the warranty which had been given. 
A few days after the plaintiff had got the horse, Mr. Peech examined 
it, and pronounced it unsound ; in fact, it was a “ roarer.” When the bargain 
was made between the parties, the plaintiff asked the defendant where he 
XXXI. 32 
