740 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
DISEASED HOCK JOINTS. 
BARKER V . BLENKINSOP. 
An important decision was awarded at the South Shields County Court, 
on Thursday, October 25th, relative to a horse warranty, and which 
had been postponed from the last months sitting of the Court. 
It appears that, at the South Shields County Court, on the 20th Sep¬ 
tember, before H. Stapylton, judge, an action was brought by i\lr. 
Thomas Bell Barker, shipowner, against Mr. John Blenkinsop, farmer, 
to recover the sum of £46 17s. for damage sustained by him by reason 
of the breach of the warranty of a chestnut horse sold to the plaintiff on 
the 23d of July last, and which the defendant warranted to be four 
years old, perfectly sound in every respect, quiet, and free from every 
description of vice. 
Mr. Blackwell , barrister, instructed by Mr. R. Kidd, of North Shields, 
appeared for the plaintiff; Messrs. Hodge and Harle, of Newcastle, and 
C. Wawn, Jun., of South Shields, for the defendant. 
Mr. Barker was called, and spoke to having, on the 23d July, pur¬ 
chased a chestnut horse of Mr. Blenkinsop for the sum of £70, £5 of 
which was to be returned. At the time he made the purchase he received 
from Mr. Blenkinsop the following warranty :—■“ This is to certify that 
I have, this 23 d of July, I860, sold a chestnut horse to Mr. Barker for 
£70. I warrant the said horse four years old , perfectly sound in every 
respect , quiet, and free from every description of vice up to this day .— 
John Blenkinsop.” 
Previous to the purchase, accompanied by Mr. Hutchinson, veterinary 
surgeon, he went to look at the horse. The coarseness of the hocks 
was pointed out by Mr. Hutchinson, and also a slight enlargement or 
“puff” on the off hock. Mr. Blenkinsop said, with respect to the latter, 
that it was merely a trifle, scarcely worth mentioning. Mr. Hutchinson 
said that the “ puff” arose from humours, and would go down after the 
horse had had some physic. On the horse being sent home it was 
attended by Mr. Hutchinson. The enlargement gradually got worse, 
and the plaintiff sent a message, asking him if he had any objection to 
means being used to reduce the enlargement. Mr. Blenkinsop declined 
to have anything to do with it, and afterwards he, Mr. Barker, sent him 
word that the horse w^as unsound, and that he would return it. Defen¬ 
dant took no notice of this communication, and subsequently the horse 
was sent to Mr. Wetherilt’s livery stables, of which proceeding notice 
was given to the defendant, with an intimation that it would remain 
there at his cost until sold, and that when sold an action would be com¬ 
menced against him. Eventually the horse was sold at Newcastle. 
James Carlisle , groom to Mr. Barker, was called and spoke to the 
“puff” on the horse’s hock. 
Mr. Hutchinson , veterinary surgeon, South Shields, said on looking 
at the horse he pointed out to plaintiff and defendant on two occasions 
that there was a slight distension on the off hock. He, however, did 
not consider that this would prevent the animal from performing his 
usual duties. This distension was not at that time, in his opinion, a 
“thorough-pin.” When the horse was inspected there was not the 
