VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
303 
vould write to him to send for it back. Defendant promised to go 
over with him to look at the horse, but afterwards refused, saving he 
had got the money and would keep it, and would not take the horse 
back again. The horse was brought back to Rempstone on the 4th of 
October, but the defendant refused to take it back, stating that it was 
not the same horse. It was then taken to the Ship Inn, where it 
remained till it was sold by auction. 
By Mr. l J erkins —Had known the horse for some time previous, but 
never noticed it going lame, or heard that it was unsound. Three days 
after it was taken from the station, told defendant that his brother 
(plaintiff) was so pleased with his bargain that he would not take £30 
for the horse, but this was before his brother had tried him. 
By the Court—Defendant asked hi in first how the horse went on, 
when he (witness) replied that if he kept sound his brother would not 
take £30 for him. 
Mr. William Blount confirmed the last witness’s statement as to what 
took place in his presence. 
Thomas Barker, farm bailiff to Mr. Kiddy, of Belper, had permission 
of his employer to fetch the horse from Kegworth station for the 
plaintiff; it was pointed out to him by Mr. John Outram, and he took 
it away. When he got a short distance, on trotting it he perceived it 
to go lame, and thinking there might be a stone in its foot he got off, 
but could find none. Did not see plaintiff when he got home. Took 
the horse hack on the 4th or 5th of October, and heard the defendant 
say he would not have him, for it was not the same horse. Witness 
replied that it was the same as he had fetched from the Kegworth 
station. 
Mr. Joseph Outram, the plaintiff, said he was not at home the day 
the horse arrived, but the next (lay he tried him in a dog-cart for about a 
mile and a half; he appeared a little lame in the near fore leg, but 
thinking it might be through a little stiffness he took no further notice 
of it. Three or four days after he tried him again, driving him to 
Ripley, four or five miles, when there appeared to be the stiffness or 
lameness as before, which went off, but on his return the same lameness 
manifested itself. He sent it out to grass for a few days, thinking it 
would do it good, and then drove it to Derby, when it went very lame. 
He turned him out again for about ten days, when he gave him a fourth 
trial, but he was still lame. Mr. Lee, veterinary surgeon, then examined 
hitn, and pronounced him unsound. In consequence he wrote to the 
defendant on the subject (the letter was put in and read), but receiving 
no answer he sent the horse back by the same man who fetched him. 
Mr. John A. Lee, veterinary surgeon, of Belper, said he examined 
the horse on the 26th of September; on pressing the flexor tendon 
passing over the navicular bone of the near fore foot, he flinched. He 
was of opinion there had been ulceration of the joint, and that the 
horse had got what was commonly called the “navicular disease,” and 
which must have been in existence some time previously, no doubt 
before the purchase By the plaintiff. 
By Mr. Perkins —There was no concussion of the coffin joint. 
By the Court—When ulceration takes place in this joint, it might be 
from concussion; setting the foot upon a stone when trotting might 
cause ulceration. If the tendon had been lacerated on the 12tli of 
August, it must have shown itself on a hard road. If produced by a 
hurt of that kind, it would be followed by inflammation; did not trace 
symptoms of inflammation when he examined the horse. If ulceration 
of the joint existed, it would never be sound, but might work. 
