422 
CATARACT. 
certainly unsoundness. The value of the mare, if she had been 
sound, would have been about £50; the expense of sale at the 
Bazaars is 2s. in the pound, and 3s. a night is the usual charge 
for keep. 
The witness stated in his cross-examination, that cataract was 
an opacity of the lens, and that nineteen out of twenty cases end 
in blindness: it might be brought on by cold, but does not come 
on suddenly, and could not possibly be produced in a day. 
Mr. Rawlins, veterinary surgeon, Bristol.—I saw the mare at 
Coomb Down the 21st of October; she had a cataract in the near 
eye ; it is necessary to have a shaded light, in order to see it dis¬ 
tinctly : she was decidedly unsound. There was no inflammation 
in the eye when I saw it, and I have no doubt the cataract had 
been there for weeks: it usually ends in blindness—it is alw T ays, 
to my knowledge, preceded by inflammation.—This was the case 
for the plaintiff*. 
Mr. Missing addressed the Jury for the defendant, and called 
Thomas Hopkins, his son. 
Plaintiff came to my father at the fair about 12 o’clock, and 
asked the price of the mare, and was told £60. He walked 
away, and came again about two o’clock ; I then showed out 
the mare in all her paces, and jumped her four times. Mr. Free¬ 
stone rode the mare for half an hour : I heard no warranty 
given. The plaintiff and defendant went out of my hearing for 
about ten minutes, and then the servant was ordered to exchange 
saddles : the plaintiff then asked the defendant to take a glass of 
brandy and water, and they went away out of my sight for a 
quarter of an hour. The first witness for plaintiff* was introduced 
to my father by Mr. Freestone as “ Captain Fitz or Kirkpa¬ 
trick, a gentleman jockey but he was not present till an hour 
after the sale. 
In his cross-examination the witness stated, that the mare had 
been in his father’s possession for ten days prior to the fair; that 
he never knew she had any cataract; she had been in his father’s 
possession two years ago, when she was sold to a Mr. Clapcott, 
from whom his father again bought her. 
Mr. Justice Patteson, in summing up, said that it appeared to 
him, that the unsoundness of the animal was fully proved, and 
that the only question for them to decide was, whether there had 
been any warranty given. The first witness swore to this effect, 
and he was contradicted by the last. If the warranty was 
given about or during the time of the sale , that was sufficient; 
but if not till after it was fully completed, it amounts to no¬ 
thing. The horse had been regularly tendered back, and conse¬ 
quently the plaintiff* was entitled to recover the value of his keep 
