336 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
sale. He sent the horse on trial to Mr. Vaughan, a farmer at 
Enfield, and, after trying and working him for two days, Mr. 
Vaughan paid him £21 for the horse. Mr. Vaughan was then 
called, and stated that the swelling and lameness had sometimes 
recurred, but that the horse answered his purpose very well, and 
that he thought him fully worth the price he had paid for him. 
Sir James Scarlett, in reply upon this evidence, remarked, 
that as to the unsoundness, the evidence only corroborated the 
case of the plaintiffs; and that as to the keep, the plaintiffs 
might have kept him for the two months in order to put him in 
better condition for the sale at Dixon’s auction. 
The Lord Chief Justice put three questions to the jury. First, 
whether they thought the partnership sufficiently proved ; se¬ 
condly, whether the horse was sound at the time of the sale 
to the plaintiffs; and, thirdly, wdiether the plaintiffs had 
proved any facts to entitle them to recover for the keep of 
the horse. As to the first question, the evidence was certainly 
slight, but he thought there was some evidence. As to the 
second point, he thought there was hardly a question about it, 
for the horse was warranted sound, and it appeared from the 
evidence on both sides that he was not sound. As to the third 
question, he thought the law was correctly stated by the de¬ 
fendant’s counsel, and there was no evidence that the horse was 
in better condition in consequence of his being kept for the two 
months. 
The jury, disallowing the keep, found for the plaintiffs for 
£17. 
PHILLIPS V. WOOD. 
The plaintiff is an attorney, the defendant a vender of medi¬ 
cine for cattle. 
This was an action to recover compensation for the injury 
which the plaintiff sustained, in consequence of the defendant 
having supplied improper medicine for a horse of his. It ap¬ 
peared that the defendant resided at Chippenham, and that ap¬ 
plication was made to him for a blister for the legs of the plain¬ 
tiff’s horse. The blister was applied according to the directions 
of the defendant; but instead of operating as a remedy, the legs 
became swelled, and the flesh sloughed, so that the horse was 
rendered entirely useless. The stuff supplied for the blister hav¬ 
ing been analyzed, it appeared that one part in nine was vitriol. 
On behalf of the plaintiff a great number of the veterinary 
family were examined to shew that vitriol was highly delete¬ 
rious, and ought not to be used at all in blisters. An equal num¬ 
ber were examined on the other side, who stated that it was often 
