V ETERIN A RY JURISPRUDENC E. 
G31 
By the Judge .—My opinion is that the injury has been occa¬ 
sioned by the horse striking against the hard pavement. Some 
scientific men think it is constitutional. There was not the same 
enlargement on both legs. 
This being the plaintiff’s case, 
Mr. Vaughan addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, who 
he described as a very respectable miller in this borough, and who 
would not knowingly do any thing half so shabby to any person, 
much less to a gentleman like Mr. Kenworthy, for all the parties 
were highly respectable. Mr. Boden believes, at this moment, 
that there was no lameness upon the horse when it left his stables; 
if there was, it was utterly unknown to him. His honest convic¬ 
tion was, that the only thing which ailed the horse was a cold, 
w’hich he candidly told Mr. Kenworthy; so that, if any thing 
particular had resulted from this cold or influenza, Mr. Kenworthy 
was fully aware of the fact, and he bought the horse with his eyes 
open upon that subject. If there really was an enlargement of the 
bone, it was seen by Swaine, and mentioned to Mr. Kenworthy at 
that time, notwithstanding which he purchased it for £45. The 
only reason for this action, then, w'as because the horse did not do 
a sufficient quantity of work for the plaintiff, yet the orders were 
that it should only be put to such and such work. The directions 
were complied with, and yet they complain of loss of service. 
Why, the horse had not been long in his new quarters before it 
was again attacked with influenza, and treated for such at the time, 
not for the foot. Instead of blistering and firing, which the surgeon 
said was the most advisable, bran mashes were given. Then why 
this assumed lameness I—why, it originated with the farriers, for 
Swaine did not see the shoeing, but left it to his apprentice. It 
then became lame, and was sold, and purchased by Mr. Mellor for 
£30. Now, Mr. Boden has no desire that his character should be 
sported with in this matter, and, therefore, confidently appeals to 
a jury. 
His Honour said, the question is, was the horse sound or un¬ 
sound when sold to the plaintiff, and not whether the defendant 
knew it. If it had even the seeds of disease, the defendant would 
be liable. We are not trying the defendant’s character, or even 
his knowledge of the enlargement. 
Mr. Boden , the defendant , was sworn .—He said he bought the 
horse in dispute in August 1848. He intended to part with some 
of his horses, and told Mr. Kenworthy he would rather sell any of 
them than the grey one; but Mr. Kenworthy, on seeing it, made 
up his mind to have it. Did not believe there was any blemish on 
the near foot when it was sold. It was the other leg—the off fore 
leg—that Swaine pointed out. The horse was then suffering from 
