352 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
so it was here. It must therefore be left to the jury to decide 
which were most worthy of credit. 
After a long consultation, the jury considered that there was no 
warranty given, and therefore found for the defendant. 
HEREFORD ASSIZES, March 25. 
Turner, Clerk, v. Dansey. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a clergyman living 
at Kidderminster, to recover from the defendant, a gentleman re- 
siding at Easton, in Herefordshire, the difference between the price 
at which the plaintiff had purchased a horse of the defendant 
with an alleged warranty of soundness, and the price at which he 
was subsequently sold by auction after he was discovered to be 
unsound. The defendant had pleaded, first, that he gave no war- 
ranty ; and, secondly, that the horse was sound at the time of sale. 
It was admitted by the defendant that the sum paid by the plain- 
tiff for the horse was £45, that the horse was afterwards sold by 
auction at Worcester for £16, and that the expenses of and inci- 
dent to the sale amounted to £4..7s..5d., leaving a net produce of 
£11..12s..6d. As a proof of the alleged warranty the following 
letter, written by the defendant to the plaintiff’s brother, was put in 
and read : — 
“ Dear Turner, — Sometimes you are in want of a neat horse : I 
have now one to part with that would carry you in the field or on 
the road. As a hunter he is perfect, and an excellent roadster, and 
would make a clever buggy horse. The price is ^£45. The horse 
has been fired ; but I can warrant him sound, and his age right. 
If I sell to a stranger, I should expect £50. Cresswell knows all 
about the prad. “ Your’s, very truly, 
“ D. R. Dansey.” 
The plaintiff’s brother stated that, in consequence of receiving 
the above letter, he accompanied the plaintiff to the defendant’s 
house, about the 31st March, 1837. Plaintiff and witness both rode 
the horse about a field in front of defendant’s house, and on the 
turnpike road. On dismounting, witness observed that the horse 
pointed his off fore foot, and the plaintiff observed that he did 
not like that. Mr. Cresswell, the veterinary surgeon, was present, 
and said no horse could have better fore feet, but that he had been 
badly shod. The horse was then taken into the stable, and wit- 
ness asked defendant how long it was since the horse had been 
fired. Defendant said, about two years, “ I believe he is sound ; 
do you think I would recommend an unsound horse to you or your 
brother]” Upon this the plaintiff bought the horse, and he and 
witness took him home. On his way he tripped very much, so 
