VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
335 
pany, and that on the 10th of June, 1831, the managing partner, 
named Farquharson, purchased from the defendant a horse war¬ 
ranted sound, except as to the loss of one eye. It was observed 
at the time that there was a swelling about the hock of the off 
leg behind, but the defendant said that it was of no consequence, 
and would not prejudice the working of the horse. The plain¬ 
tiffs then paid the price (x25) to the defendant, and set the 
horse to work in the dray, with a light load, but it turned out 
that the horse was decidedly lame, and unfit for the work. On 
the 22d of July, 1831, the managing partner wrote to the de¬ 
fendant that the horse was unsound, and desired him to take him 
away, and return the purchase-money. To this there was no 
answer, and the managing partner again wrote on the 27th ; 
and then the defendant sent an answer, insisting that the war¬ 
ranty had been complied with, and refusing to take the horse or 
return the purchase-money. The plaintiffs kept the horse with¬ 
out working him till the beginning of October, when he was sent 
to Dixon’s sale, and sold for about £14. This action was 
brought to recover the difference between the £14 and the £25, 
and also the expenses of keep for about two months—amounting 
together to £22. 
Marshall, a veterinary surgeon ; Mann, a farrier; and Brant¬ 
ley, a livery stable-keeper, stated, that the horse was spavined, 
and generally diseased in the hock of the left leg behind, on the 
10th of June, when purchased by the plaintiffs.—The notice to 
the defendant, and the sale for £14, were proved; and evidence 
was given of the persons in the partnership, which was very 
slight as to one of them ; but the Judge refused to nonsuit on 
that ground. 
■ Mr. Pollock, for the defendant, after claiming to have the fu¬ 
ture advantage of the doubt as to the proof of the partnership, 
observed, that whatever fault the horse had was pointed out at 
the time of the sale to the plaintiffs ; and that, at all events, the 
plaintiffs had no right to recover for the keep of the horse, be¬ 
cause they might have sold him immediately after notice, or 
kept him, and brought their action for the difference in value. But 
he was instructed that he could prove that the horse was really 
sound at the time when he was sold to the plaintiffs, and that he 
was still sound, and in good condition; and if he could prove 
this, the defendant would be entitled to the verdict. 
The person who purchased the horse at Dixon’s sale stated, 
that when he bought the horse there was a swelling on one of the 
legs, which appeared to him to be the effect of long standing in 
a stable, and that it abated before he got with the horse to En¬ 
field, to which place he had taken him immediately after the 
