305 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
their consideration lay in a very little compass; if they were satisfied 
that there had been a breach of warranty, or in other words, if they 
thought the disease was in existence before the plaintiff bought the 
horse, he was entitled to their verdict; but it was incumbent upon him 
to show that such lameness had previously existed, which he had failed 
to do. If, on the other hand, they were satisfied that the lameness arose 
from some subsequent cause, then the defendant would be entitled to 
their verdict. 
After a few minutes’ consideration, the jury returned a verdict for the 
defendant. 
BRISTOL COUNTY COURT. 
Before Sir J. Eardley Wjlmot, Judge. 
JURY CASE—BROOKS V. HEMBER. 
In this case, which it will be remembered was adjourned from the 
last court day, Mr. Clifton again appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. 
Stone, instructed by Mr. Dene , for defendant. The action was brought 
for £11 6s. 6d for loss sustained by the plaintiff in the purchase of a 
horse of the defendant through his misrepresentation. 
Mr. Clifton stated the case at great length for the plaintiff, but as it 
was reported at length on the former occasion, a brief recapitulation 
will suffice. The plaintiff, Mr. Win. Brooks, was a gentleman farmer, 
residing atHambrook, near this city, and the defendant was Mr. Edwin 
Hember, the well-known railway carrier and horse dealer, of Thomas 
Street, and the plaintiff complained that the defendant falsely and frau¬ 
dulently represented a certain horse as being as sound as any horse in 
England; that he was not, in fact, sound, and that the plaintiff had 
thereby sustained damage to the extent of £11 6s. 6d. the amount sued 
for. The plaintiff went to the cattle market on the 3d of last November, 
and seeing a horse belonging to the defendant jumping some hurdles 
there, he treated with him (Mr. Hember) for its purchase, and the de¬ 
fendant then said that “ he would not warrant the horse, but he believed 
him to be as sound as any horse in England.” The plaintiff rode the 
horse home, but found him so lame that he was obliged to lead him 
part of the way ; and the next morning he found that he was dead lame, 
and then wrote a letter to the effect that he had found the horse so 
lame, that unless he mended in a few days (the plaintiff thinking that 
he had probably been bruised by jumping in the market) he should 
unquestionably return him. The defendant did not reply to that letter, 
and the horse was sent first to Mr. Nathaniel Leign, veterinary surgeon, 
who gave a certificate of his lame and diseased condition, and ulti¬ 
mately to the horse repository, where he was sold by Mr. Frank Bryant. 
He then called the following witnesses :— 
William Brooks , plaintiff in the action, and a farmer residing at 
Hambrook, deposed to treating with the defendant for the chestnut 
horse in the cattle market, on the 3d of November. Said to him, “ Now, 
Hember, is this horse sound ?” And he replied “ Upon my soul I be¬ 
lieve him to be as sound as any horse in England.” Plaintiff offered 
him £20 for the horse, but defendant said he would not be sold under 
£22, and walked away. While they were discussing the matter, a man 
named Carey came up, and asked how much was between them, and 
he said £2. Carey replied, “ Neither of you know the value of a sove- 
