126 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
did lie, as some horse-dealers would have done, attempt to make 
a bargain with Mr. Ricketts. All that he said was this—“I have 
bought a horse of your servant, who warranted it sound. I have handed 
it over to the intended purchaser, and it turns out to be quite 
otherwise. Mr. Broad says it has got ringbone, and therefore 1 beg to 
return you the animal, and have my money back.’* 
He (Mr. Slacks was exceedingly sorry that Mr. Ricketts should have 
viewed the transaction in a different light, and to have refused so fair 
an offer as this. Mr. Slack read two or three letters written by Messrs. 
Whittington and Gribble, solicitors, of Bristol, on behalf of the plaintiff, 
to the defendant, who, however, declined to accede to the terms pro¬ 
posed ; and at length, in compliance with an intimation given in the 
last letter, the cob was sold by auction at the horse repository, Bristol, 
where it realised, after paying commission and expenses, £13. 7s. 6d. 
A letter was then addressed to the defendant, stating that unless the 
plaintiff received a cheque for £21 13s. 6d. (the amount due, inclu¬ 
ding expenses incurred for keeping the horse), he should, though very 
reluctantly, adopt legal measures to compel the payment of the same. 
As this offer was not complied with, the present action was brought. 
Mr. Slack, in conclusion, said that as the defendant had repudiated 
the action of his servant, the bargain was a void one, and his client there- > 
fore entitled to have his money returned. 
The plaintiff having been examined in support of Mr. Slack’s opening 
statement, Mr. Thomas Aoctens , clerk at the ‘ Bath Chronicle’office, and 
Mr. C. M ( Leod, of the ‘ Express’ office, produced the copies of the ad¬ 
vertisements above referred to, which Mr. Wilton admitted were in the 
handwriting of his client.— Mr. Robert Whittington , for whom the horse 
was purchased, spoke as to the lameness which he detected in the animal 
when trying it, and John True, Benjamin Bailey, and William Pettigrew , 
servants in the employ of the defendant, proved hearing Croome on 
separate occasions state that the horse was sound. 
Mr. T. Broad, veterinary surgeon, said ; Mr. Strange sent the horse in 
question to me on the 20th of August, and when I examined it the following 
day I found it was lame of the off fore leg from a bony enlargement round 
the coronet, which affected both pastern bones ; I also observed that the 
near foot was contracted. From that circumstance and from its style of 
going, 1 was of opinion, independently of the enlargement, that it was un¬ 
sound in its feet, the real seat of the disease being in the navicular joint. 
[The witness here produced several bones to illustrate the position of the 
disease.] I should say that the disease in both feet could not have ex¬ 
isted for less than three months, though in all probability it had been 
double that lime. The other disease is what is commonly called ring¬ 
bone ; a horse affected with the disease may work for some time, with¬ 
out its being perceptible to an ordinary observer, as the whole of the 
surrounding structures would become adapted to the enlargement; but 
when the horse ceases working for a time then the lameness would become 
apparent. I observed when the horse was in the stall that it was always 
pointing one of its feet, which is invariably a symptom of navicular dis¬ 
ease ; the horse was with me five or six weeks; I sent Mr. Strange 
a bill for £5 11s., in addition to which I have a claim of 10s. 6d. against 
him for a certificate.—In cross-examination witness said that Croome 
might have been quite conscientious in saying that the horse was sound, 
not being aware of the disease, which probably had not then made its 
appearance. 
His Honour .—Ringbone, in your opinion, constitutes unsound¬ 
ness ? 
