306 
VETERINAR V JURISPR UI)ENCR. 
reign ; you had better split the difference.” They agreed, and he 
(the plaintiff) gave him a cheque for £21. The defendant did not 
give him a receipt, and he certainly did not ask for one. Plaintiff had 
his bridle and saddle put on the horse and rode him to the Talbot hotel 
in Thomas Street. Whilst plaintiff was in Smith and James’s, he saw 
defendant walking in a hurried manner up the street, and it struck 
him that he was going to cash the cheque. As he rode the horse to the 
Talbot he perceived him to go a little limping. He went to the Bell inn, 
Thomas Street in the evening, and saw the defendant, and there told 
him he would not have had anything to do with the horse, if he had 
ridden him before he had purchased him. Defendant asked why, 
and he replied, “ because he went lame.” Defendant said that could 
not be, unless it was occasioned by his jumping the hurdles in the 
market, which was like jumping on a turnpike road, and he replied that 
he hoped he should find it the case. He staid and had a glass of 
brandy and water with defendant. Said to him, “ You are a regular 
horse dealer, and must be up to most of the tricks; now you extracted 
the teeth from that, horse in the market, to make him appear a year 
older.” Defendant said that was nothing, and that he could put any 
horse upright if he were only lame in one foot; and described how it 
was done by a process of beaning, which was done by putting beneath 
the shoe of the sound foot a bit of iron, which he said could be carried 
in the waistcoat pocket, only he must mind to take it out before the horse 
was delivered (laughter). Plaintiff said, “ Perhaps you have served mine 
so,” and he replied “ no, he had not.” The same night he rode the horse 
home, and was obliged to walk him the whole distance ; for when he 
attempted to trot, he went as though he would tip over. The next 
morning he had him taken out of the stable and attempted to be 
trotted, but he was equally as bad, if not worse. He wrote defendant 
a letter, wherein he told him that he had found the horse so exceedingly 
lame, that he had been obliged to walk him all the way home, that he 
would keep him a few days, and unless it turned out that it had been 
occasioned by his leaping the hurdles, and he did not get better, he 
should return him. He brought him to Bristol on the following 
Thursday. He went to the defendant, but as he would have nothing 
to do with him, he had him examined by Mr. Leigh, veterinary surgeon, 
who gave him a certificate. The horse was subsequently sold at the 
Repository, and he had sustained a loss, through the transaction, of 
£11 6 . 5 . 6d. 
Mr. James Pearce, farrier, of Kingsweston, was next examined, and 
deposed to having purchased the horse in question in October or 
November last, and having returned him, because he was too small and 
lame. Witness gave £30 for him, which sum was returned to him. 
Mr. N. Leigh, veterinary surgeon, was called, and deposed to the 
horse having been brought to him on November the 11th by the 
plaintiff; he knew the horse before, and had treated him for chronic 
disease in his internal parts and in both fore feet. 
il lr. Stone addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, and called 
Edwin Ember, the defendant in the action, who deposed that he sold 
the horse in question to Mr. Pearce for £30 on the Thursday previous 
to selling it to plaintiff; he warranted him to be sound, and believed 
him to lie so then. Mr. Pearce returned the horse in a week; he said 
he was hardly up to his weight, and he thought he was a little bit lame. 
He (defendant) said, “If he isn’t what I represented him to be, I will 
have him back and return the money.” He afterwards received back 
the horse, and sent him into the market; whilst he was there, jumping 
