238 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
got the horse, to whicli the latter replied that it was formerly Mr. Bentley’s, 
of Rotherham. The plaintiff suggested that it was very strange Mr. Bentley 
should part with a young horse of that description, and that there must be 
some fault with it. The defendant replied that the only 'reasen Mr. Bentley, 
had for parting with it was, that one day when Mr. Bentley was hunting, 
in putting the horse at a fence, it made a false jump, and hurt him so much 
that he said he would never ride it again. This, Mr. Whitfield said, he was 
prepared to prove was entirely false, because Mr. Bentley was never upon, 
the horse in his life ; and it would also be proved that the horse always 
was a “roarer.” 
After plaintiff was satisfied that the horse was unsound, he obtained a 
veterinary surgeon’s certificate to that effect, and sent it to the defendant, 
accompanying it with a letter telling him to fetch the horse back and refund 
the money, or steps would be taken to compel him to do so. The defendant 
took no notice of this letter, nor of another which was sent to the same 
effect ; and, consequently, the plaintiff sent the horse to a livery stable, and 
advertised it to be sold by auction, by Mr. George Eadon, of Sheffield. The 
price realised by the auction, after deducting expenses, was £9 7 s. 6 dr, this, 
deducted from the original price of £35, left £25 12s. 6 d., and adding 
to this £3 5s. cost at the livery stable, and 10s. 6d. veterinary surgeon’s 
fee, left the amount now claimed £29 8s. 
Mr. Whitfield then called evidence in support of the above statement. 
One of the witnesses, Mr. Peech, veterinary surgeon, said that in addition 
to the “ roaring” the horse had a “bone spavin” on the near hind hock. 
A groom in the employ of Mr. Bentley said that the horse at one 
time belonged to Mr. Bentley, who sold it for £20. The horse was then a 
roarer, and always was. 
Mr. Gould , for the defendant, said the whole evidence as to the warranty 
rested on the statement of the plaintiff, backed by Charlton, a man in some 
measure dependent upon him. The defendant most positively denied giving 
any warranty. He was asked for one, but all he said was, that the horse 
was as good as either himself or the plaintiff for anything he — the defendant 
— knew. At the time of the bargain, both the plaintiff and his son rode the 
horse and tested it in every way, and must have known that it was a roarer. 
If the plaintiff did require a warranty there would have been no difficulty in 
obtaining a written one. He hoped the jury would put an end to the 
case by saying there was no warranty. The roaring and spavin were at the 
time patent defects, and might have been detected had the plaintiff let 
Mr. Peech examine the horse before the bargain was made. 
The defendant, Jenkinson, was then called by Mr. Gould, and gave 
evidence to the effect that plaintiff was anxious to purchase the horse, and 
that no positive warranty was given. All he said was, that the horse was 
sound for anything he knew, he had only had it about a week himself. 
Mr. Whitfield replied, and said the jury would see that, in fact, this was 
an undefended case, and that there could be no doubt about the warranty. 
The Judge briefly summed up, and the jury, after a short consultation*, 
gave a verdict for the plaintiff. — Damages, £20. 
