MILLIARD V. ORBELL. 
395 
used, but of the substance of what passed, without anj colour- 
ing or holding back or adding to, of any thing which could, in 
any degree, affect the situation of the witnesses, or the character 
of their evidence. • 
I offered, before the verdiet was given, to have the maie 
killed, and the eyes dissected in the presence of persons qualified 
to decide j and if speck or cataract could be demonstrated, to 
pav the value of the mare. And subsequently I made the same 
offer to the defendant’s attorney, his own brother, and to hold 
myself bound to do so at any time within a week. He intimated 
that the offer should be accepted, but never applied to me to 
make good my engagement. 
We insert this “ Report” with much pleasure, and with many 
thanks. The spirit of truth and candoui which it exhibits 
is creditable to the writer. It affords a very singular , but a not 
unimportant illustration of the subject which has lately occupied 
many pages of our periodical, and shews us that we have much 
yet to le'arn respecting the diseases of the eye of the horse, 
and the method of ascertaining the actual existence oj these 
diseases .—Edit. 
Hilliard v . Orbell. 
Mr. Steer opened the pleadings. 
Mr. Platt stated the case. This was an action on the war¬ 
ranty of a horse sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, who is a 
surgeon, residing in Clapham-road, for £42, payable by a bill, 
for which an action was subsequently brought against the 
plaintiff, who now sought to recover the costs incurred by that 
action, together with the difference between what he sold the 
horse for, viz. £18, and the sum which he paid for him ) his 
whole demand being £75. 
Benjamin Simpson.—I happened to be walking with the 
plaintiff in May 1833, when the defendant met us, and said to 
the plaintiff, “ I have got a horse that will suit you. There is 
nothing the matter with him, but he whistles a little bit in the 
gallop.” We went with him to the stables, and I went to take 
up one of the horse’s legs, when the defendant said, “ You have 
no occasion to look at him, for I warrant him sound, barring his 
wind.” The plaintiff bought him for £42, and gave his bill for 
that amount, payable in three months. About three days after¬ 
wards I saw the horse, when he was so lame that he could not 
