344 
HORSE CAUSE-CAVE V. COLMAN. 
r 
Cross-examined.—Had been a druggist before he became a 
veterinary surgeon, and was about three years at the college. 
By the Judge.— Had seen Mr. Sewell bleed frequently at the 
college in London, and never saw him use any other instrument 
than the lancet. 
A farrier deposed to having bled some thousands of horses with 
the lancet. 
A person who had seen the horse before it died, said he should 
have been sorry to give £20 for it. 
. The jury here expressed themselves satisfied, and returned a 
verdict for the defendant. 
HORSE CAUSE. 
Otway Cave, M.P. v, Colman, Horse-dealer, at St. Albans. 
MR. CAVE wanted a horse to carry him pleasantly in the parks. 
He saw and admired one (Atticus) in Mr. Colman^s stables, and 
enquired whether he was suited for that purpose. Colman said 
that he could not have a more showy or finer horse; and that it 
would suit him well. 
At Mr. Cave’s request Atticus was taken into the yard, and 
mounted by one of the boys, when he kicked and plunged fu¬ 
riously. Colman expressed much surprise at this bad conduct 
of Atticus, and said that it must be owing to the curb-bridle,' as 
he had never shewn such symptoms before. A snufHe bridle was 
then tried, but he was as unmanageable as ever. Colman then, 
seemingly, displayed more astonishment. It must have been 
occasioned,” he said, by the horse not having been worked for 
two or three days.” 
Mr. Cave declared that he could not comfortably or safely ride 
a horse so viciously disposed. • Colman assured him that the 
horse was perfectly quiet and safe; and that his present ill-humour 
was caused by tight girthing, or some accidental thing, and was 
of no consequence. 
On the faith of this representation Mr. Cave bought the horse; 
and on the first day of his being taken into the park he began to 
rear and plunge, and was accordingly returned. 
Colman refused to refund on two grounds: that he had not 
given a warranty; or that if he had, it ivas of no use, as it icas 
given on a Sunday. 
No warranty seemed to be proved; but the Judge (Baron Gar- 
row) ruled, that the representation made by the plaintiff was a 
sufficient warranty; and a verdict was accordingly given for the 
plaintiff. 
