VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
359 
was agreed to. Mr. Jones accordingly tried the horse, and had him exa- 
mined by Mr. Proctor, a professional man in Liverpool, who told plaintiff 
that he could not pass the horse sound, who in consequence took the horse 
back to Napier, and pointed out to him the alleged defect (which was a 
weakness in one of his fore-legs). Napier persisted that the horse was per- 
fectly sound; and agreed to warrant him. The plaintiff thereupon agreed 
to purchase, giving a horse of his own in part payment, and got a written 
warranty, which he produced. He rode the horse home, a distance of about 
thirty miles : the following morning the horse was discovered to be quite 
lame. Plaintiff communicated with defendant upon the subject, who desired 
plaintiff to keep the horse until his (defendant’s) return from Ireland, which 
was accordingly done. Ultimately plaintiff took the horse to Liverpool, by 
defendant’s request, with a view of making an exchange, but they were un- 
able to come to terms. The plaintiff subsequently sold the horse by auction 
at Lucas’s for £26, being £22 less than he paid Napier for him, and brought 
this action to recover that sum, and the expenses that he had been put to by 
reason of the breach of warranty. The plaintiff was examined, who fully 
bore out the statement of the learned advocate. The warranty was then put 
in, which was in the following terms : 
“We have a brown horse, Mr. Jones has a bay mare. We value our 
horse at £50, but we have mutually agreed to take £10 in cash, and the nett 
price the mare realised — £8 10s. — in the whole, £48 10s. Now, in consi- 
deration of the said sum of £40, which we acknowledge receiving, we warrant 
our horse sound , and agree that should Mr. Jones not like the horse 
on trial, we agree to let him have any other horse we have after Mullingar 
fair, which takes place 11th November, and to take back the brown horse at 
£48 10s.; and should the horse he takes be of more value, he gives the dif- 
ference — if of less value, we give him the difference.” (Signed, and stamped 
with a penny receipt-stamp.) 
Mr. Hime objected to this document being put in, it being all agreement, 
and therefore requiring a half-crown stamp. 
Mr. Williams contended that it was exempt under 55 Geo. Ill, c. 184, by 
w’hich it is enacted that all agreements on the sale of goods and chattels 
shall be exempt from stamp duty, and he relied upon Skrine v. Ellmore to 
bring this document within the exemption. After some discussion, ruled 
that no stamp was necessary. 
Mr. Proctor was then called, who proved that the horse was unsound when 
first sold to plaintiff, and that when he was subsequently sold by plaintiff he 
fetched his full value. Other witnesses were examined, but whose testimony 
only went to prove the extra damages. 
Mr. Hime then applied to nonsuit the plaintiff, on the ground that this 
action was not maintainable, for that by the [agreement plaintiff was bound 
to accept another horse from defendant, upon his disapproving of the one 
sold, and could not sue him for this breach. 
Mr. Williams , on the other hand, contended that this was an absolute 
warranty of the horse, and that Mr. Jones was not bound to adopt the 
alternative given in the agreement, it being entirely optional with him to do 
so or not. 
After a lengthened discussion upon this point, the learned judge ruled in 
favour of the plaintiff. He observed that it was quite clear that plaintiff had 
been induced by the warranty to make the purchase, and there being a 
breach, plaintiff was entitled to recover. There were some of the items 
that could not be allowed. He would give judgment for £28 10s. 
