VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
461 
unsound ness from two veterinary surgeons; but permitted Mr. 
Roberts’s coachman to leave the horse at his house, and said that 
he should be taken care of until the matter was settled. A few 
days after the horse was returned, Mr. Croft sent for Mr. Clay, a 
veterinary surgeon residing in Shrewsbury, to see him, whose 
opinion was, that the rupture being so very small, it was of no 
material consequence, and did not amount to unsoundness. 
Upon the 18th of July, Mr. Hickman, a veterinary surgeon of 
Shrewsbury, saw the horse on the part of Mr. Roberts, and his 
opinion, with regard to the rupture, coincided with that given by 
Mr. Clay ; but, upon making a general examination, he disco¬ 
vered a very small cataract in the near eye: this he declared an 
unsoundness, and that, from the nature of the disease, it must 
have existed previously to the sale. Mr. Croft said he had bred the 
horse; that nothing had ever been known to be the matter with 
his eye before he sold him; that the subject in dispute was the 
rupture, and that no complaint had been made of the eye till 
then, nearly a month after sale. 
The first witness was the plaintiff’s coachman, who deposed to 
being present at the sale, and that he discovered the small tu¬ 
mour under the belly. He took the horse back to Barchurch 
next day (June 24th). Mr. Croft said, if Mr. Hickman and 
Mr. Hales pronounced the horse unsound, he would take him 
back; if not, Mrs. Roberts must stick to her bargain. It was on 
account of the rupture the horse was returned; did not know or 
suppose any thing to be the matter with his eyes. Upon cross- 
examination he admitted turning the horse round to look at his 
eyes, but did not examine them so as to be able to say whether 
there was a small speck upon either of them, or not. 
Mr. Hammonds saw the horse on the 23d of June; found that 
he had a small rupture; considers that an unsoundness, as he 
would be liable to severe injury from accidents to the part; and 
it was possible that it might become strangulated, but he did not 
consider that very probable. His opinion was only required as to 
the rupture; nothing was said about the eyes, and he did not 
examine them at that time. Saw the horse again in the latter 
end of July, at the Cross Keys Inn, Oswestry; there was then a 
small cataract in the near eye. Saw the horse a few days ago: 
the eye looks the same now as it did in July. 
Mr. Hickman examined the horse in the first or second week 
in July; does not remember the day, but believes it was the 
fourth: did not consider the small rupture an unsoundness; 
and, upon his telling Mr. Croft so, that gentleman asked him to 
give a written warranty, lie replied, that, before he could do 
that, he must examine the horse generally; and in doing this 
