HORSE CAUSE *. ALTERATION OF STRUCTURE. 179 
also that the plaintiff did not object to the horse on account of 
lameness or unsoundness, but merely that it was too slight a 
horse for his purpose; that it “had not corporation enough” for 
him. One witness stated, that, about two months ago, lie saw 
the plaintiff riding it, at 10 o'clock at night, at the rate of 14 miles 
an hour. 
It was proved, that written conditions of sale at the de¬ 
fendant's repository are affixed on each of the stables, and that 
one of those conditions is in these terms :—“ All horses sold 
either by public auction or private contract, warranted in any re¬ 
spect ; and not answering such warranty, to be returned by six 
o'clock the next evening, or, in default, the purchaser will be 
obliged to keep them with all faults.” This was relied on as 
the second ground of defence, the plaintiff not having required 
the defendant to take the horse back till about a fortnight after 
the purchase. 
Lord Tenter den, in summing up the case to the jury, said, that 
he was of .opinion, in point of law, that the printed condition, if 
applicable to any case, could not apply to the present, the de¬ 
fendant's representation at the time of the sale being, that the 
slight lameness which the animal then exhibited would disap¬ 
pear in the course of a week or ten days. With respect, to the 
plaintiff having kept the horse after it had been certified to be 
unsound, that was a circumstance that could not affect the 
verdict; it could merely go in reduction of the damages. As to 
the question upon the warranty, all the witnesses had concurred 
in stating that the cornet was enlarged, and that the foot was 
contracted; and it appeared that although the horse might, if 
worked only gently, exhibit no symptom of lameness, yet, if put 
to much exertion, it would become lame, and would conse¬ 
quently be unsound. The jury w ere to say whether those symp¬ 
toms and that unsoundness existed at the time of the sale ; and if 
they thought they did, then the plaintiff would be entitled to 
their verdict for the difference between the present estimated 
value of the horse and the price which the plaintiff gave for it, 
with some small addition as a compensation to him for ha'sing 
been deprived of the horse during tne month it was sent out to 
grass. 
O , r • # * ** • 
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages £18. 
