506 
veterinary medical society. 
conclu ion M V, u acC0Hnt ’, vve should never come to anv 
conclu=ion. Much, however, would depend on the nature of the 
cough . is it simply an affection of the glottis, or is it that couoh 
which may forebode pneumonia? ° 
Mr. Field.~-lt is exceedingly difficult to say what kind of 
cougar forebodes pneumonia. It may at first be simph an affec¬ 
tion of the nostril, accompanied by sneezing; to that will succeed 
cough, sore throat ; and, the affection extending down the trachea 
aboiious respiration and inflammation of the lungs may follow• 
and this being a case of continuous inflammation andd^ease 
would give the purchaser a claim. se ’ 
Mr. ij/Me related a case, showing the necessity of giving earlv 
ot.ee to the vender. A horse was purchased with a cough The 
buyer was informed of it on that very-night, but he kept the 
hoise for five or six weeks, and then brought his action. He was 
nonsuited for not giving immediate notice to the seller. 
* lr. Langworthy had again urged the question, because in 
been §,ven ■*** - 
crind‘' Ff rclva V' The legal decisions in these cases are often 
ciuel. A man buys a horse out of a dealer’s stable. He rides 
in^davs 11 ® Tfi St T Ce ° n th ® follovvln g da y> and for many succeed- 
supen-ene S? h° rSe 1S , ”° P re P ared for thls - Fever, pneumonia 
S' 4 , bnng u h m ^bion against the dealer, and obtains 
wi‘h on r A 6 should be P lainl y drawn - A horse bouo-ht 
null one disease is not returnable for any other, whether it be’or 
be not the consequence of the first. 
li • / ;. Turner.—The line has been drawn with regard tocouo-h. 
depends entnely on timely notice being given to the vender? 
How fJ!t 'Tf 1161 ' 6 ‘ S ,° ne P° lntof considerable consequence: 
How tai does the general warranty extend ? Will it indemnify 
horses Uye H? m " ^ l0SS he “ a y sustain? He is ignorant of 
nneumoni? fr 5 0116 ^ acou g h > and that loes on to 
pneumonia The horse is returnable on the general warranty; 
but if a veterinary surgeon tells him that the horse has a couo-h 
and yet he purchases him, or that the horse is afterwards in din¬ 
ger, and yet he uses him, the loss is his. Yet frequently a man 
J Vs a horse—he is told by the veterinarian that he is unsound— 
le buys and works him; he gives no notice to the dealer: the 
tioi se dies—he sues for the value and recovers. In truth, there is 
no law relating to these cases. The precedents are equal on both 
sides, and the lawyers on both sides can make an equally plausi- 
, case j an d have an almost equal chance of success on both sides 
He recollected a very curious case of wilful neglect, presuming on 
this uncertainty of the law. A person bought a horse, and 
