VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
61 
taken thence to Bishop Monkton. Within a very few days Mr. Batty sold 
the horse for £260 to Mr. Chinnock, near Reading, and Mr. Chinnock 
subsequently sold him for £270 to Mr. Collins, of London. Mr. Collins, 
however, returned the horse, and so did Mr. Chinnock, and Mr. 
Batty also desired to return him for unsoundness, or to reduce the price 
to £50, which he had paid into court, as his full value. 
The case for the plaintiff was that the horse was perfectly sound on 
the 26th of July, and that any defects now visible had arisen from 
subsequent causes, and particularly from the effects of epileptic fits and a 
wound on the head. It was not denied that the horse was warranted 
sound to Mr. Batty, and Mr. Botterill relied upon the evidence of 
Professor Spooner, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Holmes, and other veterinary 
authorities, who saw the animal at Driffield, and proved that at that time 
there were no indications of unsoundness. Mr. Holmes had a horse 
competing with the animal in question at Driffield for the prize, and if 
there had been any symptom of disease it would have been a disqualifi¬ 
cation. Mr. Holmes’s horse took the second prize, and he said he should 
certainlyhave called attention to any defect in this horse had any been dis¬ 
tinguishable on the day of the show, which was also the day of the sale. 
The case for the defendant was that the horse was naturally unsound 
or affected with hereditary disease when Mr. Botterill sold him at 
Driffield, and Assistant-Professor Varnell , Mr. Field, Mr. Mavor , Mr. 
South, Mr. Cox, Mr. Greemcay, Mr. Chinnock, Mr. Brewster, and other 
witnesses, declared most unequivocally their opinion that he was a 
“ whistler,” had bony enlargements inside each hind leg, and also a curb 
on the off hock. Great stress was likewise laid on the enlargements of 
the hocks, as being spavins, and Mr. Field said this disease had pro¬ 
bably existed for some months. Mr. Varnell and others, however, 
denied the existence of spavins, and spoke of the enlargements as being 
splints. No very great point was made of the curb. 
Mr. Collins, on discovering the “whistling,” sent the horse at once 
to the Veterinary College, and he was there pronounced unsound, as a 
“ whistler,” and having bony enlargements—splints —of long standing, 
a short distance below the seat of spavin. Mr. Varnell admitted that the 
horse was not now a “whistler,” but that the enlargement of the bones 
of the hind legs was unsoundness. 
Mr. Mavor (in reply to his Lordship) said that understanding that 
this horse had never done any hard work, he was of opinion the bony 
enlargement of the hocks was constitutional, and would therefore take 
more time to develop than if the animal had been hard-worked. He 
examined the horse on the 28th of October, and he thought the disease 
must have existed for at least three months. 
Mr. Richard Barker, of Malton, to whom, by defendant’s directions, the 
horse was delivered on the 8th of August, said that in his opinion the 
horse was not deliverable on account of unsoundness. The hair was 
off the leg and the hocks looked large. Mr. Botterill bought the horse 
of him for £75, and promised, if he was lucky with him (Mr. Barker), 
to give him something more. When the horse took the prizes at 
Leeds and Driffield witness thought that, as a gentleman, plaintiff 
should have given him £5. 
Mr. W. Roo/ces, of Exeter, and other witnesses, said that on the 
assumption that the horse was spavined, he was not worth more than £40. 
Plaintiff’s witnesses said that in their opinion the horse was worth 
£100 in its present condition, or £80 even if spavined, though they did 
not believe it. They admitted that the horse went lame to-day, when 
brought down to Palace Yard for the inspection of the jury, but they at¬ 
tributed this to the state of his feet. 
