VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
127 
Mr. Broad .—It does, sir, 
Mr. Barrett^ veterinary surgeon, of Keynsham, having given similar 
testimony, 
Mr. Wilton said, after hearing the veterinary surgeons’ evidence, he 
was ready to admit that there was unsoundness in the cob at the time 
the animal was sold. He quite agreed with Mr. Slack as to the ques¬ 
tions which the jury had to determine : at the same time should they he 
of opinion that a warranty was given by the coachman without the mas¬ 
ter’s authority, then he (Mr. Wilton) contended that the defendant could 
not be held responsible, as was shown by the decision in a recent case— 
Brayley v. Todd; hut if any warranty had been given, either expressed 
or implied, Mr. Ricketts would not have come into the Court and de¬ 
fended the action. 
The coachman, however, denied having said more than he believed the 
horse to be sound, and advised the plaintiff to see the horse himself, 
which he had done. He therefore purchased the horse, not upon the 
contract of soundness, which the advertisement specified, but upon his own 
personal inspection of the animal, and at a different price to that de¬ 
manded in the newspapers, and which constituted quite a different con¬ 
tract. Up to within the last three months it had been held that a servant 
entrusted by his master to sell a horse was empowered to make any 
representation he thought proper to effect its sale, and that if he warranted 
the horse the master was held responsible; but the Court above had 
held ill the case in question that there must be a definitive proof of the 
authority of the master to the servant to warrant the horse at the time 
of sale. 
The defendant was unable to attend from ill health, and the only wit¬ 
nesses examined for the defence were John Croome, the coachman, and 
Thomas Coller, farrier, who had shod the horse ever since it had been 
in the possession of Mr. Ricketts, and who said that he always thought 
it a good useful little cob. 
Mr. Slack having replied, his Honour summed up with great care, 
observing with regard to the law of warranty, that any expression of 
opinion by the seller at the time of sale was part of the contract, and was 
equivalent to a warranty. Without wishing to prejudice the minds of 
the jury, lie felt it his duty to say that the case cited by Mr. Wilton 
was quite different to the case at present under consideration, because it 
simply established this point, that if a gentleman sent liis coachman to 
sell a horse, it did not authorise the coachman to give a warranty with¬ 
out his master’s sanction. His Honour then referred to the question of 
damages, and afterwards epitomised the whole of the evidence, leaving 
it to the jury to say whether a warranty was given, and if so, whether it 
was given by the sanction of the master. 
The jury retired, and after consulting together for nearly an hour, 
they informed the Court that there was no prospect of their coming to a 
decision, as there were three against two on the points at issue, and they 
therefore prayed to be discharged. 
The legal gentlemen engaged at length agreed to comply with the re¬ 
quest of the jury, who were then discharged, and it was arranged that the 
case should either be left to the decision of his Honour, or be tried 
before another jury next week, if it was not amicably disposed of in the 
mean time. 
