62 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
The whole of the evidence on both sides being' finished, the further 
hearing was adjourned until the next day. 
Saturday, December 7th. 
The jury retired to deliberate at one o’clock. About a quarter to three 
they sent a note to his Lordship, intimating that there was no chance of 
their agreeing upon a verdict. A futile effort was made to arrange 
matters between the parties. At a quarter-past three the Chief Justice 
sent for the jury, and the foreman said they were 10 to 2. 
Air. Field said he would not take upon himself the responsibility of 
accepting the verdict of 10. 
The Lord Chief Justice said the same thing happened in the city not 
long ago. The jury were divided, 10 to 2, with no probability of agree¬ 
ment. One party assented and the other refused, and afterwards it was 
found that the party refusing to abide by the judgment of the 10 would 
have had the verdict. 
The jury were then discharged. 
The Lord Chief Justice said that in this case every effort should be 
made to arrange matters, because it was very likely it would be tried 
again with the same result. 
It was rumoured in this case, also, that the ten were for the side 
refusing to take the verdict—that is, for the plaintiff. 
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS— November 28th. 
{Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before the Lord Chief Justice and 
a Special Jury.) 
ANDERSON V. NICHOLSON. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a horse-dealer, to recover 
the sum of £100 upon the warranty of a horse 
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that, having heard that 
the defendant, who is a widow lady, living at Cowley Hall, near Slough, 
had a horse for sale, he went down to see it, and after looking at the 
animal he asked the groom the price, and his reply was £150. The 
plaintiff considered it too much, and offered £100, but eventually the 
purchase was completed at £120, for which he irave a cheque for the 
amount, and took a warranty for the horse’s soundness. Subsequently 
the plaintiff sold the horse to Lord Huntingtower, and he was after¬ 
wards returned and examined by Professor Spooner and Mr. Mavor, 
who found that the animal’s fore feet were diseased, and that a bone- 
spavin existed in one hock, upon which the horse was taken to Tater- 
sall’s and sold for £20. 
The defence was that the horse was never warranted. The plaintiff 
brought a cheque for a “ black gelding, warranted sound,” which words 
were written on the cheque, but which the defendant refused to accept, 
on the ground that the horse was not warranted. The plaintiff said it 
was only a matter of form, as they always drew their cheques in that 
manner. 
Mr. Hawkins, Q. C., and Mr. Garth were counsel for the plaintiff; 
Mr. Serjeant Shee, W Mr. Russell, and Mr. Willoughby for the defendant. 
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant, saying that 
they believed there was no warranty given. 
