178 HORSE CAUSE *. ALTERATION OF STRUCTURE. 
% 
extent of exertion, it would, and the lameness would become 
worse. Witness was of opinion, that the foot had been con¬ 
tracted for many months. 
Mr. Field confirmed his certificate of the unsoundness, and 
stated, that w 7 hen he examined the horse on the 15th of June, it 
was then very lame, and his opinion was, that its recovery was 
doubtful. He had examined it again on Friday last. It was 
free from lameness then, but there was an enlargement of the 
coronet, and a pointing of the leg, and also a discolouration of the 
sole to a considerable extent. The appearances were those of a 
pre-existing disease. 
Mr. Campbell , in addressing the jury, raised several points for 
the defence : first, that the horse was sound; secondly, that by 
the conditions under which it was bought, the plaintiff was not 
at liberty to return it after keeping it beyond the day next fol¬ 
lowing the purchase ; and thirdly, that by keeping and using it 
after having obtained a certificate of its unsoundness, he hkd 
waved his right of action. 
In support of the first ground of defence, the learned counsel 
called Nathaniel fVelton , the person from whom the defendant 
had purchased the horse only two or three days before the sale, 
to the plaintiff. He stated, that he purchased this and another 
horse of a breeder in Suffolk, and sold it to the defendant in a 
lot of seven horses, under a warranty of soundness. It was 
brought from Suffolk on the 26th of May. 
Mr. Sewell stated, that he examined the horse on Monday 
* #/ 
last; that it did not then exhibit any symptoms of lameness or 
unsoundness. He admitted, however, that the coronet was en¬ 
larged, “ as far as the structure was concerned, 1 ’ and that the 
foot was slightly contracted. If the horse were driven at the 
rate of so much as 12 miles an hour, he thought it very likely 
that the lameness w 7 ould come on. The horse was wor.th.now 
about £20. [One of the other witnesses had stated that it w as 
worth about £10, and another said £15.] 
Mr. George Fenwick , who had also examined the horse 
on the preceding Monday, stated that it w 7 as quite sound. 
It w r ould go, he thought, 10 or 12 miles an hour. He ascribed 
the fact of its pointing its fore foot (which it still continued to do) 
to its having been improperly shod. . 
The defendant’s clerk, Thomas Siers , and several others who 
had seen the horse before it was sold to the plaintiff, stated that 
they had not noticed any appearance of lameness. The de¬ 
fendant’s foreman admitted that he had represented it to be an 
“ out-and-outer,” and that it w ould go 13 miles an hour, but he 
said he did not state this on his own authority. It was stated 
