VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
51 
was nearly three hours in performing the journey. The horse had a 
good rest in Bath. It made a very had stumble in going down the 
Gloucester road. I thought he had broken his knees, but he had not. 
I left Bath about six o’clock. In coming' up one of the hills there was 
something at a gate, the horse shied from one side of the road to the 
other, and I thought he would have gone round. On the following 
morning, the 7th April, I noticed when the horse came out of the stable 
that it went stiff and slightly lame on its fore legs. On the following 
day (Friday) I drove him out a short distance, and found that it went 
worse than it had at all, both with regard to shying and going. On the 
8th April I wrote to defendant, stating that the horse shied and went 
badly on his fore feet. Defendant did not reply to this letter. On the 
following Saturday I called at defendant’s house, and told him the horse 
was subject to shying. Defendant said the horse did not shy. Defend¬ 
ant asked if I knew whether the horse was unsound. I told him I was 
not sure of the horse’s unsoundness, but that I was going to have him 
examined. Defendant told me he would write to Mr. Rumming, from 
whom he had the horse. On the 11th April I drove the horse to Chip¬ 
ping Sodburv, and had it examined by Mr. Limbrick, a veterinary sur¬ 
geon. On the same day I wrote to defendant, communicating Mr. 
Limbrick’s opinion to him as to the horse being unsound. Near my 
house there is an incline, and on starting to Chipping Sodbury the horse 
nearly fell in passing this spot. On the 12th April 1 returned the horse 
to defendant. On the 13th the defendant sent the horse back to me. 
Shortly afterwards the defendant, accompanied by Mr. Scott, a veteri¬ 
nary surgeon of Chippenham, came to my house. Mr. Scott examined 
the horse, and pronounced it sound. Defendant said he should not 
have the horse again, and I told him I should not have it. Mr. Scott 
afterwards said, “ I think you had better try and settle it in some way 
or other. Mr. Curtis had better supply you with another horse in a 
week or so, and you keep the horse till then.” The horse was left on 
that condition. I never saw defendant afterwards, and the other horse 
never came. On the 27th of April I sent notice of sale to defendant. 
The horse was sold on the following day, the 28th, and realised £28 10s. 
I had kept the horse that time at the defendant’s request. Defendant 
was present at the sale. The horse was sold to a Mr. Neale, of Thing- 
ley, near Corsham. I afterwards in June last went with Mr. Leigh, a 
veterinary surgeon of Bristol, to Thingley, and pointed out the horse. 
I then found the horse shod with leather. I again went on a subsequent 
day with Mr. Kent, of Bristol, to examine the horse. It required some 
“scheming” to get at the horse. The horse had a very bad broken 
knee when I examined it with Mr. Leigh. It had not a broken knee 
when it was sold by auction. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Jones—Before I bought the horse I knew 
Mr. Rumming had been the owner of it. I very properly went to see 
Mr. Rumming about it. I asked Mrs. Rumming the reason of her hus¬ 
band parting with the horse. She told me that it was very good in 
harness, and that the only reason of their parting with the horse was 
because it did not go fast enough. Curtis told me I might put the 
horse in the gig, but don’t remember that Curtis told me to try the 
horse in any way I liked. When I tried the horse, defendant’s man 
drove it. The horse was pulled up together, and went very well for 
about half a mile. The pulling up is generally resorted to when horses 
have bad feet. I have had thirteen years’ experience with horses. A 
man named Holborow exercised the horse after Mr. Curtis returned it 
to me. Don’t know that early in the month of April last my carter 
