114 
VETERINARY MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
the disease of the chest, which we designate under the name of 
courbature, should be unsoundness in one, and not in the other ? 
This, however, is the fact. How can it be explained by any 
influence of locality, that a delay of forty days should be granted 
in Lorraine to detect glanders and broken wind, and that nine 
days should be considered as sufficient for the same purpose in 
Champagne ? 
But let this be so, and usage considered in relation with the 
localities that govern it; let it be as well founded, and as just, 
as in point of fact it is deficient in these respects, it would not 
the less result, that, in the actual state of our commercial rela¬ 
tions, the legislation which consecrates it would be most ob¬ 
jectionable. A few examples will sufficiently illustrate this. 
It is an invariable fact with us, that few domestic animals 
always remain in the district which produces them. There are 
in France five or six breeding districts, from which all the others 
are supplied: for example,— the greater part of the horses 
which are bred in Le Boulonnais are transported to Normandy, 
where they are reared until they are three, four, or five years old, 
and then bought by the merchants of the different departments, 
by whom they are distributed over the whole of France. 
Suppose that two horses with incipient immobility are pur¬ 
chased at the same fair in Normandy, by two merchants of 
different districts. In about five or six days one of these mer¬ 
chants sells his horse at Paris, and the other sells his at Rheims. 
On the following day the purchaser at Paris, and the one at 
Rheims, perceive that the horses which they have bought are 
affected with immobility. Both of these immediately commence 
an action on the warranty against the seller. Observe w T hat 
results : at Rheims the tribunal cannot deny that the demand is 
founded on equity , since it results from the certificate of the 
veterinary surgeon, that immobility is a disease extremely serious 
as it regards the horse, dangerous to the purchaser, and which 
may by its nature not be observed at the time of purchase; but 
considering, in point of law , that immobility is not unsoundness 
according to the usage for Rheims, it is decided that the pur¬ 
chaser has no redress. The purchaser at Paris is more fortunate; 
the judges of that city condemn the merchant to take back his 
horse, not on any ground of equity, but because immobility is 
unsoundness according to the custom of Paris. Is this, then, 
equal justice ? or if the purchasers have common sense, can you 
make them comprehend that the horse which is judged to be 
unequal to the work of a coach-master at Paris, because he has 
immobility, is with the same defect equal to the w r ork of a coach- 
master at Rheims ? Where in this case is the influence of loca- 
