VETERINARY MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 173 
plaintiff purchased it, stated, that as soon as it was put into the 
stables, it began crib-biting pretty sharply, and mauled the 
harness about. 
. Did you put the harness out of its way ?—O, yes; or it would 
have been soon all gone. . , 
Did he appear to be an old crib-biter?—Yes, he was a stanch 
old hand. 
It was proved that the defendant had had notice to take the 
horse back; and that he refused, stating that crib-biting was 
“ no vice.” He admitted that he knew the horse was a crib-biter 
at the time he sold it to the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff’s attorney said he believed it was the same horse 
that had been offered to him for £30, about six weeks before. It 
was a good shaped horse, and in very fair condition; but he 
returned it because it was a crib-biter. 
Richard Tatter sail proved that the horse was sold at his father’s 
auction, by the plaintiff’s direction, on the 12th of J uly last, at 
2G guineas. It was knocked down in the name of Robinson ; 
but the defendant was present at the sale, and paid the money. 
The net proceeds were £23..19s..6d. 
[It appeared by the subsequent evidence, that the defendant 
having got the horse again, afterwards sold it to the Rev. Dr. 
Halcomb.] 
Mr. Sewell stated, that he was assistant professor of the Vete¬ 
rinary College. Crib-biting, which was a vicious habit in horses, 
was considered as an unsoundness. It was treated as a disease. 
It frequently led to indigestion, and then, of course, there w T as no 
saying what might follow. It was curable in its early stages. 
Mr. Bracy Clark was of opinion that crib-biting was one of the 
worst vices of a horse. It had alwavs been considered as a vice. 
___ o 
When it became confirmed, so as to affect the health of the 
animal, it was an unsoundness. A crib-biter, he should say, 
would be returnable upon a warranty against vice, but not upon 
a warranty confined to unsoundness, unless the health of the 
horse was affected by the habit at the time. 
The Attorney-General addressed the jury for the defendant, 
and called the following: witnesses :— 
William Cadman stated, that he was in the employment of 
Mr. Shack well, who kept stables in Oxford-street for the sale of 
horses on commission. The horse in question (he believed it was 
the same) stood in those stables for sale in June last, and was 
purchased by the defendant. It was then veiy healthy, and in 
good condition. It was not a stanch old hand” at crib-biting: 
it bit but very slightly. 
