VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
419 
Matson v . Webb.—Warranty of Lambs. 
This was an action upon the warranty of some sheep, and 
was tried before the Chief Justice at the late Maidstone assizes, 
when the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £ 72 . 
The plaintiff purchased a quantity of lambs, which the defendant 
warranted sound : they, however, proved to be quite the contrary, 
and ten of them died very shortly after the purchase, and the 
rest were in a very unhealthy state. A correspondence in conse¬ 
quence took place between the parties; and the plaintiff finally 
wrote an angry letter, complaining of the dishonesty and fraud 
that the defendant had practised upon him, in having warranted 
as sound lambs which were in so miserable a condition ; and stat¬ 
ing, that, unless the purchase money was returned, an action 
would be brought. No answer, however, was ever returned to 
the letter; and the present proceedings were instituted. On the 
part of the defendant it was urged, that no warranty had ever 
been or intended to be given; and that the lambs became un¬ 
healthy after they got into the plaintiff’s possession, from being 
improperly treated. His Lordship, in summing up, expressed 
some surprise that an answer had not been returned to the letter; 
and left it to the Jury to say, whether the defendant, at the time 
of the sale, knew of the unsoundness; if he did, he was respon¬ 
sible. —Verdict was given for the plaintiff. 
Mr. Sergeant Wilde now moved for a new trial on two grounds, 
—the verdict being against evidence, and misdirection on the part 
of the learned Judge; and submitted, that no inference was to 
be drawn of there being a warranty because the defendant had 
not answered the angry letter, but allowed the other party to 
take his own course. The plaintiff could only recover upon 
making out warranty; and he relied upon that with reference to 
the count in the declaration, which was addressed to the law of 
warranty, and not misrepresentation. 
The Chief Justice thought the manner in which he had left the 
case had not misled the Jury. He would state what his opinion 
of it was, but as two of his learned brethren differed from him, he 
thought it better to grant the rule, as a verdict against evidence 
only. 
Mr. Sergeant Wilde suggested, that it would be very conve¬ 
nient if parties were always made to state why a new trial was to 
be granted. The learned Judges were of the same opinion, and 
stated that it should be made a rule of Court. 
