618 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
they were depastured with the other sheep. Nothing happened to them, 
and they are all now doing well. My land is dry and healthy, and sheep 
have been depastured there in consequence of its healthiness. In my 
father’s time twenty years ago, I remember 200 ewes, belonging to Mr. 
Whittaker, of Bratton, wintering there. These sheep were tested in 
going in and coming out. Tivo of them were killed, and they were in 
a sound condition. I sent for Mr. Hoddiuott, who came and killed a 
sheep. Afterwards I instructed my solicitor to apply to the defendant, 
and in consequence of his not meeting my views, I ordered the re¬ 
mainder of the sheep to be sold by auction. They fetched altogether 
£57 Is. Gd. I have known the defendant for many years, but never had 
any dealings with him before. 
After hearing other evidence in support of the case, Mr Saunders 
addressed the jury for the defence. He contended, that no warranty 
was given; and secondly, that the sheep were not unsound when they 
were sold, hut became so after they were in the possession of the plaintiff. 
He should show that these fifty-two sheep were only a portion of a la rger 
flock which had fed upon the defendant’s farm; that he had sold seventy 
of this (lock to a person named Noyce, two to a butcher at Bar ford, 
and others to a person named Millard, at Salisbury, all of which were 
sound. Mr. Phillips would swear that he had never had an unsound sheep 
upon his farm since he hud lived there, and if these statements were 
true, they went to show that the sheep were sound when they were 
sold, and they must have got diseased after they were out of his pos¬ 
session. He suggested that the sheep were driven an unreasonable 
distance for one day, and that they had taken the disease either on the 
road from Hindoo to Batcombe, or when at the latter place, which had 
a bad reputation for bane sheep. 
Mr. Charles Phillips, the defendant, deposed—Hive atBarford Farm, 
about three miles from Wilton. Before Wilton fair I had a flock of 
about GOO sheep. I sold seventy of these to Noyce. They all fed on 
the same land—sometimes on the arable, and sometimes on the down. 
Three days before the fair 1 sold two sheep to Mr. Lever, and on the 
7th of November I sold ten of the same flock to batcher Millard, of 
Salisbury. They were all fed on the same place. I never had any bailed 
sheep on iny farm. I will swear that most positively. On the 12th of 
September, at Wilton fair, 3 sold Mr. Strong fifty-two sheep, at 
£1 13a\ Qid. ahead. I never warranted these sheep. I believe the sheep 
were sound when 3 sold them. 3 am quite sure that 3 said nothing 
about a warranty. Several other witnesses, including two veterinary 
surgeons, were also examined, 
His Honour then summed up to the jury. He observed that there 
was no denial that the sheep were diseased; the only question was 
when they became so diseased. There were two points in the case. 
First, was there a warranty or not ? if there was no warranty given at 
the time of the sale, then the defendant was not liable, and the plaintilf 
must put up with a bad bargain. But secondly, the question was, had 
these sheep the s^eds of disease in them at the time of sale at Wilton 
fair? Had they those seeds which became more developed afterwards? 
The great point for the jury to determine was, whether or not the sheep 
were in an incipient state of disease when they were sold at Wilton 
fair.—The jury immediately found a verdict for £33 As. Q>d., the amount 
claimed. His Honour said that if it was any satisfaction to the jury, 
he perfectly agreed with the verdict. 
