110 
VETERINARY MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
morning' of the 20th, was the result of a rupture of the exten- 
sory tendons, that rupture must have been occasioned by some 
sprain or jerk, or other injury, occurring after the sale, which 
is not impossible ; and that Mr. Smith’s opinion of its probable 
endurance, formed entirely from an inspection of the limb so 
late as November, and which opinion at least could only be 
speculative, is erroneous; or, that the swelling and lameness 
observed on the 20th, and on account of which the mare was 
offered back, had nothing to do with the rupture of which Mr. 
Smith speaks, but must have proceeded from some other cause, 
which did not exist at the time of the sale on the 19th, and 
which appears to have been temporary, as the mare appears to 
have afterwards recovered, and to have been for years past con¬ 
sidered sound, and of full value. 
On the part of the defender, the direct evidence consists of 
the testimony of several witnesses, some of whom knew the 
mare before, and who saw her on the day of the sale, both on 
the road to the market and at the market, and who speak to the 
absence of swelling or lameness, so far as their observation goes. 
This evidence is liable to the following observations: 1st. 
That none of the witnesses saw the mare trotted out, which 
would have afforded them a better opportunity of judging of 
her soundness. 2d. That none of them except one (James 
Carnegra) examined the mare with a view to purchase her. 
3d. That lameness may exist, though not observed ; and, there¬ 
fore, that the non-observation of lameness is not so conclusive of 
the absence of lameness, as the observation of it is conclusive of 
its presence. 
The inferential evidence, on the part of the defender, consists 
of, 1st. The testimony of witnesses who knew and used the 
mare before the sale, and up to the day of the sale, without dis¬ 
covering any swelling or lameness. 2d. The testimony of wit¬ 
nesses who have known and used the mare subsequently, with¬ 
out discovering any lameness. 3d. The fact that the mare has 
since wrought as well as otlier horses, and has been sold for the 
same price of £25, and has given satisfaction to the purchasers. 
That evidence is liable to the following observations : 1st. 
That the mare may have been lame, though not observed by the 
witnesses; and that Mr. Smith’s evidence goes to prove a rup¬ 
ture two months, at least, before the sale. 2d. That, undoubt¬ 
edly, the mare was lame on the 20th September, and for several 
weeks afterw'ards. 3d. That the mare may have been worth 
£25 for the purposes of the subsequent purchaser, though not 
sound. But it is of some consequence to keep in view', 1st. 
That the witness, Barber, who wrought the mare for about twelve 
