VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
191 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 5. 
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Mr. Baron Martin and a 
Special Jury.) 
HANDLAY V. RICKARBY. 
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. D. Keane were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. 
Collier and Mr. Talfourd Salter for the defendant. 
This was an action on a breach of warranty of a horse. The plaintiff, Captain 
Handley, who formerly held a commission in the Scot Greys, resides at 
Barton Court, near Hungerford, Berkshire, and the defendantis stud groom 
to Captain Popham, who lives in the same neighbourhood. In November, 
1860, the plaintiff went to Captain Popham’s stables to look at some 
horses, when the defendant inquired if he required a good weight-carry¬ 
ing hunter—a bay gelding, about five years old. The plaintiff did not 
then purchase him, but subsequently he agreed to give £110 for the 
horse, on the understanding, as he alleged, that the plaintiff was to have 
a warranty of twenty-four hours, to enable him to have the horse exa¬ 
mined as to his soundness, which the defendant did not warrant. The 
horse was sent to Mr. Mavor, of Park Lane, London, who pronounced 
him unsound; so, as the defendant refused to take him back, he was 
sold at Tattersall’s for £26, and the present action was brought to 
recover the balance, 
The case for the defendant was, that he did not give any warranty, 
but that he said he would take the animal back if not approved of, if 
returned by nine o’clock the following morning, which had not been 
done. 
This was the only question in the case, and the jury found for the 
plaintiff, damages £87 10s. 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Feb. 13. 
(Sittings at Nisi Prius , at Guildhall, before Me Lord Chief Baron, and 
Special Juries.) 
JACKSON V. HARRISON. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a farmer at Gartan, in 
Yorkshire, against the defendant, who is the manufacturer of “ Harri¬ 
son’s oil-cake for feeding cattle,” to recover compensation in damages 
for the loss of a great many cattle, alleged to have been killed by 
certain injurious and poisonous matter contained in the oil cakes. 
The defendant pleaded not guilty. 
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, and Mr. H. 
Thompson, were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Frost, Q.C., and Mr. J. 
Brown for the defendant. 
It appeared from the evidence, that the plaintiff occupied a farm of500 
acres, on which he kept a considerable number of cattle. In the months 
of February, March, and April, 1861, he purchased three separate tons 
of oil-cake of the defendant. The first lot seemed to agree with the cattle 
very well, but the second and third did not. It seemed to reduce and 
degenerate the beasts, in consequence of which the plaintiff doubled the 
quantity that he usually allowed them ; but instead of doing them any 
