691 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY OF A COW. 
Kingston County Court, Tuesday , September 18th. 
Before J. F. Fraseh, Esq. 
Baldry v. Kidd. 
Claim £10 18s. for damages alleged to have been sustained on a 
warranty in the exchange of a cow. Mr. Haynes, of Wandsworth, 
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Pearce, Barrister, for the defendant. 
Mr. Haynes opened the case, and stated that plaintiff had sold de¬ 
fendant a cow in the market, in the month of August last, which was 
afterwards exchanged for another, the first having been injured, and 
when exchanged the defendant did not tell plaintiff about it, although 
he knew of it, and the cow had to be sold at a considerable loss ; and 
the plaintiff now sued for the difference, for the damage sustained, and 
expenses incurred for attendance on the cow. 
Mr. Baldry was called, and said that he sold a cow to defendant for 
£17 10s.; she was in calf and quite sound, and the calf was to be 
returned. A week after defendant applied to him, and said that he 
wished to part with the cow, and he looked at another in the market, 
for which he asked lS^s. Ultimately an exchange was effected, and 
defendant gave 5s. and his cow, declaring that the cow was quite sound 
and perfect. After getting her home, he found out that the udder was 
bad, and he could not get milk from it. He afterwards complained to 
Kidd about the cow, who told him it was a bad job, and he must get 
what he could for her, and he sold her for £9. He applied to Kidd 
for the money he had lost by the transaction, which he refused to pay. 
In the cross-examination nothing was elicited to shake the previous 
testimony. 
John Bundy, in plaintiff’s employ, said, he was present when the first 
cow was sold. The defendant examined her before he bought her. 
Recollected the cow coming back to his master’s place, and they could 
not get any milk from her. 
Cooper, a drover, was called to prove that defendant examined the 
cow’s mouth and also her teats, and he drove the cow to the paddock 
in the Home Park. 
Charles Jones said, he was present at the bargain, and heard de¬ 
fendant say that he would warrant the first cow being sound and 
perfect. Took the second cow over, and received back the first one, 
which defendant had said was all right. The udder turned out to be 
inflamed. When she got home it was bathed. 
Mr. Ward, veterinary surgeon, deposed that he examined the cow, 
and found the udder inflamed. The disease would arise from a variety 
of causes, and he should say, that in this case it arose from inattention 
in calving. The cow could not recover the injury, as it would be 
permanent. 
This closed the case for the plaintiff, when Mr. Pearse, in a very 
clear and able manner, contended that his client was not liable for any 
damages, and that if the cow had been injured, it was done after she 
had got into the plaintiff’s possession a second time. He should show 
that the plaintiff had pressed the exchange of cows, and the defendant 
never gave any warranty, or said she was sound, and a direct contra- 
