108 VETERINARY MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCL:. 
a half, without observing her to be lame or unsound, sold her, 
when he gave up farming, for £25, to Roderick Morison, in 
Delmore Boharn, who still had her at the date of the proof, in 
September 1833, and had not found any fault with her. In 
regard to the other facts attempted to be established on either 
side, the evidence is more or less contradictory or unsatisfactory. 
The truth, which the oversman must search for and discover 
if he can, is the soundness or unsoundness of the mare at the 
time of the sale. 
The above established facts prove that the mare was lame 
next morning after the sale, and they go far to prove that she 
afterwards recovered from that lameness, and became w'orth as 
much as the pursuers paid for her. 
But they are not conclusive as to her condition before or at 
the time of the sale. On that point the evidence is of two 
kinds —direct and inferential. 
_ . 
The direct evidence for the pursuers, as to the condition of 
the mare at the time of the sale, consists of the testimony of 
James Plampton, who says, that he saw the mare in the market 
before she was sold, and observed that she was lame in one of 
the hind legs, which lameness, he says, was quite apparent when 
she was led in the usual manner in the market. 
This witness’s testimony appears to be liable to the following 
observations : Isf. He is the only person brought forward who 
observed any lameness before the sale, although the mare tra¬ 
velled nineteen miles along the road, and was shewn all day in 
the market, and must have been seen by many. The observa¬ 
tions of the deceased Mr. Elder rest solely on the testimony of 
this witness. 2d. He says he directed the attention of one 
of the pursuers to the lameness, before the mare was deposited 
in M'Grigor’s (at least so the oversman understands the testi¬ 
mony) ; but the pursuer does not appear to have immediately 
acted upon that discovery as he ought to have done, and no 
explanation is given of his reason for not doing so; on the con¬ 
trary, his conduct appears to have been inconsistent with such a 
communication. 3d. This witness does not say that the mare’s 
leg was swelled on the i9th, which was its condition next morn¬ 
ing, and which the pursuers’ witness. Smith, says would be the 
immediate consequence of that rupture of the tendons which he 
says caused the lameness. 
The inferential evidence for the pursuers, as to the condition 
of the mare at the time of the sale, consists of, 1st. The 
evidence which proves that on the morning of the next day (the 
20 th) the mare was lame. 2d. The evidence of the manner in 
which she was taken care of during the night of the 19th, as 
