VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 125 
and in the second place that there was no warranty given, and none 
asked for. 
He (Mr. Slack) understood that on the part of the defendant there 
would be a third pretension set up, viz., that, granted there was a 
warranty given by Croome, that he had no authority to give it, and 
therefore Mr. Ricketts was not bound by it; so that he presumed 
there would be for the jury to decide three questions which were at 
issue between the parties—First, whether the horse was warranted; 
secondly, if warranted, whether the party by whom the warranty was 
given had authority to give it; and thirdly, whether the animal was 
sound or unsound at the time of sale. 
The warranty was in this manner: sometime previous to June Mr. 
Ricketts was anxious to sell the horse, and on the 1st of .June he put 
an advertisement into the ‘BathExpress,’ which was in thesewords—“To 
be sold, a well-bred bay cob, fourteen hands three inches high, sound, 
six years old, steady to ride and drive. Apply at Croome’s stables, back 
of Lansdown Crescent, Bath.” The same advertisement, with a very little 
alteration, appeared in the ‘Bath Chronicle’ on the 6th of June; the onl y di f- 
ferencebetween the two being, that in the latter it was said that the “horse 
wasgood in harness or saddle,very quiet, and the price forty-five guineas.” 
These advertisements represented to the world }hat the horse was 
sound. An application was accordingly made by his client to Mr. 
Croome, and then the assurance in the advertisements was repeated 
in the clearest possible way. It was of paramount consequence in 
the bargain that the animal should be sound, and Mr. Strange was 
prepared to give what was commonly called a sound price for the horse 
Again and again he put the question to Croome whether it was a 
sound animal, and he said that it was. It was true that Mr. Stothert 
said that there was no warranty given ; but the learned Judge would 
tell the jury that it was undoubtedly good law, in a case of breach of 
warranty, that the word warranty need not be used at all; but that if 
anything was said by the seller to the purchaser in the shape of a repre¬ 
sentation as to the quality of the animal, it was for the jury to say 
whether the purchaser was not led by that representation to purchase 
the animal, and whether it did not amount to a warranty. 
Having received this assurance, the animal was inspected by the 
plaintiff on the 15th or 16tli of August. It was at that time at grass at 
Brislington, and it was ridden home from that place, and delivered at 
Mr. Strange’s stables. Immediately upon that, Mr. Whittington, jun., 
for whom the animal was intended, received it, and rode it to Swainswick, 
when he perceived that it limped. He kept it at home one night, and 
the next day, on trying it again, he found symptoms of lameness a 
second time apparent. He communicated the fact at once to Mr. Strange, 
who, finding that there was something the matter with the animal’s fore 
feet, and thinking that the shoes might be the cause of it, had it in¬ 
spected by Mr. Broad, veterinary surgeon. Mr. Broad, perceiving that 
there was some tenderness about the fore feet, put on more appropriate 
shoes, and was in hopes that the animal would be useful for the pur¬ 
poses for which it was required. Again it was tried, and again it was 
found to be lame, and Mr. Strange then gave it up as a bad job. It was 
placed in the hands of Mr. Broad, who was of opinion that the animal 
was suffering from ringbone, which was likely to be a permanent cause 
of lameness. 
This was communicated by letter to Mr. Ricketts, who expressed his 
surprise that the horse should be unsound, though he would not take 
it back. Mr. Strange did not ask for the slightest compensation, nor 
