VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
475 
obtained the first prize at each. The colt had, upon some 
previous occasion, lost the heel of the off fore foot, and the 
consequence was that a slight blemish was the result. The 
defendant was anxious to have him, and purchased him for 
100/., thinking that he would eventually make a hunter; but, 
finding that he made no et bone,” and was too small for the 
field, he sent a person named Ford with him to last Lin- 
coln fair, saying that he ought to get 120/. for him. Ford 
took him as desired, and when the horse was being ridden 
down the street early in the morning the plaintiff and his 
brother es looked him over,” but did not buy him; but at 
eleven o’clock they saw the horse again, and agreed to pur- 
chase him for 7 54, if the defendant would give a warranty. 
The warranty was given by Ford on behalf of the defendant, 
the money paid, and the horse taken by railway to 
London. 
The plaintiff said, that upon the third day after the arrival of 
the horse in London he exhibited slight symptoms of lameness 
in the off fore foot, and, thinking that the journey might have 
caused the defect, he took little or no notice of it* Shortly after- 
wards the plaintiff was in treaty with a gentleman’s coachman 
for the purchase of him for the sum of 130/., and had him 
examined and shod by Mr. Hempson, a veterinary surgeon 
and farrier, who certified that he was unsound from internal 
disease of the fore foot, such unsoundness and disease pro- 
ceeding from a contracted foot, on which there was a blemish. 
The coachman tried the horse the next day and said that he 
was lame, and the deal went off; whereupon the plaintiff, 
enclosing the certificate, wrote to the defendant, who at once 
replied, denying that the horse was unsound or lame when 
he was sold at Lincoln fair, and referred the plaintiff to 
his solicitors. On this state of things the plaintiff consulted 
some other veterinary surgeons of experience, who all certified 
that the horse w r as lame, assigning as a cause the reasons 
given by Mr. Hempson above. A letter was then written to 
the defendant, giving him notice that the horse would be 
sold at Tattersali’s for what he would fetch, and intimating 
that the defendant would be held liable for any loss arising 
from the sale. The letter reached the defendant on Sunday, 
and the sale was to take place on the following day. 
Finding that no time was to be lost, the defendant sent 
Ford up to London with instructions to buy him, which he 
did for 40 guineas, leaving the plaintiff a loser of 42/. 18s. Gd., 
to recover which the present action was brought. 
On the part of the defendant it was most emphatically 
denied that the horse was, or ever had been, unsound, and 
