50 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
BREACH OF WARRANTY. 
MALMESBURY COUNTY COURT. 
Alfred Ward, of Nettleton, gentleman, v. Benjamin Curtis, of Hulla- 
vington, horse-dealer. 
This case, which was tried in this court in June last, when the jury 
were unable to agree to a verdict, has excited an unusual degree of inte¬ 
rest amongst all classes in this and the surrounding neighbourhood, and 
in consequence the court was densely crowded on Monday, Sept. 5th, 
when a new trial took place before James Francillon, Esq., judge, and a 
respectable jury. Most of our readers are probably familiar with the 
leading facts of this case, but as a good deal of new and additional evi¬ 
dence was imported into the present hearing, and as some diversity of 
opinion exists on the subject of the question in dispute, we again give a 
detailed report of the proceedings, in order that those who feel an inte¬ 
rest in the case may, on perusal of the evidence, be in a position to form 
an opinion as to the correctness of the verdict or otherwise. 
The gentlemen composing the jury on the present occasion were: 
Mr. William Peacey, Crudwell, Mr. Joseph Hiscoek, Hankerton, Mr. 
William Cave, Newnton, Mr. Richard Elliott, Sherston Magna, and Mr. 
William Newth, Sherston Parva. The damages claimed by the plaintiff 
were, it will be recollected, £11 12s. 6d., and the amended particulars 
alleged that, contrary to the defendant’s warranty, the horse in question 
was, at the time of sale to the plaintiff, unsound, and was not good in 
harness, and not free from vice. Mr. Edlin, barrister-at-law, of Bristol, 
instructed by Messrs. Deane, Chubb, and Saunders,of Gray’s Inn, London, 
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. W. S. Jones, of the firm of Messrs. 
Jones and Forrester, solicitors, Malmesbury, conducted the defence. 
Mr. Jones admitted the warranty,but denied the breach. Mr. Edlin, in 
his opening address to the jury, gave an outline of the evidence which 
he should lay before them, which would, he believed, conclusively bring 
home to their minds that the warranty had been broken, and that there¬ 
fore the plaintiff would be entitled to a verdict. Mr. Edlin then 
called— 
Mr. fVardy the plaintiff, who deposed as follows—On the 31st March 
last, I purchased of defendant, at Hullavington, a nag-horse at £37. 
Defendant signed a written warranty stating that the horse was sound, 
good in harness, and free from vice, which warranty I now produce. 1 
drove the horse home. On the following morning I tried the horse, 
when I found it go stiff on its fore legs, especially the off fore leg. On 
Wednesday, the 6th April, I drove the horse from Nettleton to Bath. 
I found it very awkward in going down the hills, and the horse went 
very badly. 1 went the least hilly road, and found that the horse went 
worse than when I had previously tried him. The horse stumbled a 
good deal on rough road, and wanted the whip in going down the hill— 
in my judgment the horse did not go good in harness. Drove him with 
all the care I could. The distance to Bath is about twelve miles, and I 
