VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 353 
much, indeed, that plaintiff dismounted to see whether he had 
picked up a stone . When the horse got home, and was put into 
the stable, he continued to point the off fore foot, as if in pain. 
On his cross-examination, witness stated, that the defendant 
offered to give the plaintiff a week’s trial of the horse. 
Other witnesses were called, who stated, that the horse, after he 
came into plaintiff’s possession, pointed the off fore foot, and 
shewed symptoms of lameness. 
Mr. Franklin, a veterinary surgeon, stated, that he saw the horse 
early in April; that he was then lame, and that there was nothing 
in his appearance which led him to believe that the lameness was 
attributable to any recent accident. This witness also stated, that 
in the month of June, the defendant said, that he warranted the 
horse sound ; that he thought it very strange that the horse should 
be lame, though he certainly was lame at that time. 
On the part of defendant, Mr. Cresswell, a veterinary surgeon, 
was called, who stated, that he was present at the time of the sale, 
and that no warranty was given. The horse was quite sound at 
that time. He had been lame before, and witness had fired him at 
defendant’s request; after the firing he was perfectly sound, and he 
was so at the time of the sale. Defendant gave no warranty; but 
said, “ on the word of a gentleman, I know nothing wrong about 
the horse, but you may take him and try him;” he added, “he has 
been fired on all four legs, as you may see ; he may not be exactly 
up to your weight, but you may take him and try him.” 
Several other witnesses were called, who stated, they had ob- 
served the horse up to the time of the sale; that he was perfectly 
sound; that he did not point his off fore leg as stated by the plain- 
tiff s witnesses, and that he hunted well. 
Mr. Justice Patteson summed up the evidence; and the jury, 
after full twenty minutes’ consideration, found for the defendant ge- 
nerally. His Lordship observed, “ Gentlemen, there are two ques- 
tions for you to find upon — First, whether the horse was warranted 
sound ; and next, whether he was sound or unsound at the time of 
the purchase.” The jury then reconsidered, and found for the 
defendant upon the first issue; namely, that there had been no 
warranty. The Judge then asked them what was their verdict 
upon the second issue, whether the horse was sound or unsound at 
the time of the sale. They again considered, and returned a ver- 
dict for the plaintiff upon that issue, finding that the horse was un- 
sound at the time of the sale. The plaintiff will have to pay to the 
defendant the costs of the first issue, viz. as to the warranty ; and 
the defendant will have to pay the plaintiff the costs of the other 
issue, namely, as to whether the horse was unsound at the time of 
the sale : so that they are both winners, and both losers. 
VOL. XII. ’ 3 A 
