443 
VETERINARY JURISPRUD 
The Biped v . The Quadruped 
■■ -Vois. 
We condense the following trial from a provincial paper. The 
names of the parties are immaterial; we state the facts as we find 
them. Mr. A-, a respectable surgeon, wants a horse : it is to 
be a good one, but it is not to cost much money. At length he 
hears that there is one that will probably suit him at the stables of 
Mr. B—, a veterinary surgeon, and he summons his friends, 
Messrs. C— and D—, also surgeons of eminence, and they meet 
in conclave deep to determine this important affair. The price is 
£20. They like the horse, and they offer £16. The vet. is 
obstinate; he will have £20, and, obtaining that, he would take 
back the horse at the end of a month, if there w^s any unsound¬ 
ness about him, or he would allow such a portion of the price as 
Mr. D. should think was proper; but he would not part with him 
for less than £20. At length a compromise takes place. Mr. A. 
gives £18, and purchases the horse; and then comes a question. 
Does this £18 include the warranty and the power of return 1 
The bargain is made, the money is paid, and Messrs. A. and C. 
drive away to Mr. A.’s residence. Mr. C. says, that on the journey 
he thought the horse vicious, and had doubts whether he was 
sound; and he also adds—but it does not appear in evidence that he 
makes the slightest remark of this to any one at the proper time— 
that “ he observed at the stable that the horse had cracked heels, 
and he thought that any one might see that something was the 
matter with him.” 
This was on the 20th of March. On the 26th, the horse not 
proving satisfactory, he was sent back to Shrewsbury, in order to 
be left at the defendant’s residence. Mr. B. refused to take him 
in, and he was taken to a livery stable. Mr. B., however, sent to 
D— immediately, telling him that the horse was returned, and 
asking him what portion of the price, or whether any, should be 
refunded. The reply was, “Not a stiver; the price you asked, 
and for which you engaged to take him back, was £20 ; no promise 
was made to do this for £18. 
The plaintiff also went to Mr. D. to ask what sum he should 
demand, and received precisely the same reply,—that he had no 
right to demand any thing, for he had not given the sum on the 
condition of which this power was to have been granted. 
The other medical gentleman, however, Mr. C.,—who acknow¬ 
ledges that he was at the farther end of the passage when the 
bargain was struck, and who was standing in the street when the 
other parties came out,—distinctly swears that he heard the power 
given to return the horse, a certain sum of money, as might be 
determined on by Mr. D., remaining in the hands of the seller. 
