124 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
and not in horseboxes. The plaintiff put his mark to a paper which it 
appeared contained a condition “that the company would not be liable 
for any risk, for injury from loading or unloading, or for horses being 
injured from any cause.” The plaintiff brought this action to recover 
the value of the horses. 
The plaintiff stated that the paper was never read over to him, or ex¬ 
plained to him. He had been in the habit of sending horses in this way 
for years. The plaintiff had given £143 for the six horses ; they were 
sold for £79 18s. 3 d. 
Mr. Smith contended that the horses were carried under a special 
contract, and that therefore the plaintiff could not recover. The 
contract, in truth, was that the defendants would not be liable for any¬ 
thing. 
The Judge said the legislature had passed an Act nullifying such 
contract as unreasonable, but they had omitted to include ships. 
Mr. Pearce submitted that a receipt was given for the fare. He 
could not contend that the contract was not entered into; but in railway 
cases it had been decided that such contracts were illegal. 
The Judge said it was a record of the contract, and he did not 
think it was a question for the jury, but for himself. The risk was 
that of the owner of the horses. He must direct a nonsuit.—Plaintiff 
nonsuited. 
BATH COUNTY COURT.— Friday, Nov. 15th. 
(Before C. F. D. Caillard, Esq., Judge.) 
WARRANTY BY A SERVANT.—JURY CASE. 
THOMAS STRANGE V. ALFRED RICKETTS, ESQ. 
The plaintiff, a livery stable keeper of this city, sought to recover 
£21 13s. 6d. from the defendant, a gentleman residing in Lansdown 
Crescent, for a breach of warranty of a horse. 
Mr. Slack appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilton for the defen¬ 
dant. 
Mr. Slack , in stating the case to the jury, said that the plaintiff in the 
case they were about to try, was Mr. Strange, a livery stable keeper, and 
the defendant, a gentleman, who was residing in Lansdown Crescent. 
The question between them arose upon the purchase by Mr. Strange 
of a horse, in August last. Upon the occasion of the sale there was 
unquestionably a warranty given that the animal was sound by the party 
concerned in the sale of it, who was a Mr. Croome, the coachman of 
the defendant. He (Mr. Slack) thought it would be proved beyond 
any doubt whatever, that when the sale took place, Croome did 
represent that the animal was sound as well as possessed of other 
qualities, which were, however, not material for their consideration; 
but when the unsoundness, which he should be able to prove did exist 
at that time, was discovered, it was at once communicated to Mr. 
Ricketts, who, through his solicitor, Mr. Stothert, said that whatever 
representations had been made were bona fide representations, that 
was to say, that Mr. Ricketts believed at the time when the sale took 
place that the animal was just such an one as it was represented to be ; 
