VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
349 
swollen, and on withdrawing his hand, it smelt very offensively. 
He saw him every day for three weeks, and during that time he 
still quidded and remained in the same state. Witness then turned 
him out to grass, and there the scouring continued, and he got daily 
worse. About five weeks before Christmas he took him to Shrews- 
bury to be examined by Messrs. Hickman and Crowe. He was 
blistered in the throat the day after he was purchased. 
Mr. Salter, an attorney at Ellesmere, said, on the 13th of August, 
he went to Stanwardine, and saw the defendant and his son, and 
told the defendant that he came, at request of the plaintiff, to know 
why he refused to take the horse back again, which his son had 
sold for £9, and warranted to be all right, except being a whistler: 
defendant replied, that it was not likely his son would sell a horse 
for £9, and give a warranty with him, when, if he had been all 
right, he would have been worth £50 or £60, and refused to take 
the horse back, or return the money. 
Samuel Smith, who was riding with Mr. Allen, for the purpose 
of taking the gig back to Chester, corroborated Mr. Bathe’s evi- 
dence. 
Six other witnesses also spoke to the quidding of the horse while 
he was at grass. 
Mr. Hickman, a veterinary surgeon, carefully examined the 
horse on the 16th of November, and found his grinding teeth dis- 
eased, so that he could not use them with effect. Independent of 
whistling, he considered him an unsound horse. The disease of 
the teeth would prevent his masticating his food properly, which 
would cause him to quid, and oats would pass through him un- 
broken, and that would keep him in low condition. After death 
he examined the jaw and the viscera, every portion of which was 
very much diseased. From all the circumstances of the case, he 
considered that, besides whistling, disease did exist on the 17th of 
August, the day he was sold. 
Cross-examined. — He did not quid from a sore throat ; the quidding 
was to be attributed entirely to the state of his teeth. This horse’s 
teeth did not want filing. They would not meet, and appeared to 
have been irregularly formed, and could not have been made to 
meet by filing. The horse was six years old, well bred, but he 
did not consider him a first-rate hunter. 
Mr. Crowe, also a veterinary surgeon, examined the horse on 
the 16th of November. He considered him an unsound horse. 
His teeth and gums were diseased, and there was an offensive 
smell proceeding from ulceration of the mouth. He thought the 
disease must have existed in August last. 
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd addressed the jury for the defendant, 
and said, the jury need not be told, that it was not usual for war- 
ranties to be given with £9 horses. They would remember, that 
