354 
ON WARRANTY, &C. 
tating such commerce ? And, if differences have originated out 
of warranty, have they not almost always existed among dealers 
of low character V 9 
Such is the defence set up (and very properly set up) by 
Huzard in favour of the laws of warranty; were which abolished, 
there can exist no doubt in the mind of any one in the practice 
of horse-traffic that heavy inconveniences and grievances would 
be the result. 
In determining what defects and maladies constitute unsound¬ 
ness, M. Huzard tells us, that his aim is, to rightly adjust the 
balance between the vender and the purchaser. He takes law 
No. 1 as his principal guide and director ; and he instructs us to 
refer to it in any and every case not particularized by him. 
The first we find our attention called to, in horses, is one the 
French denominate “ immobility which, according to our au¬ 
thor’s own avowal, is one of those “ assemblages of symptoms 
that have in the art obtained special denominations, without the 
actual diseases from which they spring being known to us.” And 
his account of those he classes under “ immobility,” is of too in¬ 
definite and unsatisfactory a nature to induce us to transcribe it: 
we shall, therefore, pass on to the next in succession; to 
Crib-biting , Wind-sucking , Weaving, fyc. 
“ If crib-biting is not a cause of indigestion, it is often a con¬ 
sequence of it: at times, such subjects have had organic disease 
in the alimentary canal. When such a habit has been long prac¬ 
tised, the front borders of the incisive teeth become worn away ; 
so that, in examining for age, this appearance at once strikes us. 
But when the teeth are not worn, as in the case of a wind-sucker 
(Vanimal qui tique en Vair), there is no discovering the vice 
without watching the animal for a length of time. 
According to the French law (No. 1), a horse that is discovered 
to be a crib-biter after he is bought, is returnable to the vender, 
providing he bears no evident marks of the habit upon his teeth ; 
for if such signs do manifestly exist , he is not held to be return¬ 
able in the eye of the law, because the defect or vice must or 
ought to have been self-apparent to the purchaser (according to 
law No. 2), and who, on such an occasion as this, could not plead 
ignorance, since he would hardly make the purchase without 
looking in the mouth to ascertain the age of the animal. 
Viciousness or Restiveness. 
• u So far from a horse fulfilling the purposes for which he has 
been purchased, he may turn out to be, in a variety of ways, 
