VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
741 
slightest lameness or stiffness in its movements. He never told Mr. 
Barker that the horse had a “ thorough-pin,” or that it was unsound. 
He did not say that the “ puffiness” referred to could be reduced in a 
few days by physic. The coarse hocks were also pointed out to Mr. 
Barker. In cross-examination, witness stated that about the eighth day 
after the sale the “ puffiness” had much increased, and he found a good 
deal of heat about the joint. He thought that it had received a sprain, 
and he told Mr. Barker so. 
Mr.Moses Pye, auctioneer, said he sold the horse for twenty-six guineas, 
to Mr. Robson, of Saltwell. The horse was both spavined and had a 
very bad “ thorough.pin.” Both legs were spavined, one more so than 
the other. 
Mr Scott and Mr. C. Stephenson, veterinary surgeons, gave similar 
evidence. They considered the horse was labouring under confirmed 
thorough-pin and spavin. 
Mr. Hodge then laid before His Honour some arguments for the 
defence. He contended, first, that the horse was not unsound at the 
time of sale; secondly, that the horse’s defects were patent defects; 
thirdly, that if they were not patent defects they were pointed out by 
Mr. Hutchinson to Mr. Barker; and fourthly, that if the unsoundness 
of the horse at the time of sale was thrown in doubt, the plaintiff was 
not entitled to recover. Numerous cases were cited in support of the 
above propositions. 
He then called Mr. Blenkinsop, the defendant, who said that when 
Mr. Hutchinson came with Mr. Barker to look at the horse, he re¬ 
quested him if he saw any defects to point them out to the plaintiff, as 
he did not want any reflections afterwards. Mr. Hutchinson pointed 
out what was termed a “ puffiness” on the hocks, and also the coarse¬ 
ness of the hocks. The horse had been so since lie ('defendant) pur¬ 
chased it. It was never lame while in his possession. He saw Mr. 
Barker twice after the purchase, and he then made no complaint. On 
one occasion he said that he liked the horse very much. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Blackwell.—He saw the horse the morning 
before the sale. He thought it had a “ thorough-pin ” He did not tell 
Mr. Barker so. Never knew a “ thorough-pin” lame ahorse. Never 
saw any “spavins” about the horse. 
Mr. Blackwell; Do you mean to say that he was sound in every re¬ 
spect ? Witness: I mean to say that I could not warrant those parts 
which were pointed out to Mr. Barker. 
The Judge. — Then why did you not except them ? 
Witness —I did not say anything about the exceptions in the war¬ 
ranty. 
The following veterinary surgeons were called on behalf of the 
defendant: Mr. C. J. Hubbick, of Durham, said the horse was per¬ 
fectly sound. It had a “ thorough-pin,” but no “ spavin.” A “ tho¬ 
rough-pin” would not make it less fit for the ordinary purposes of the 
saddle or harness. 
Mr. Chas. Hunting, of South Hetton, said the horse went thoroughly 
sound, was not “ spavined,” and that “ thorough-pin” was not a mark 
of unsoundness. He never saw a more perfect actioned horse. 
Mr. George Cook, of Newcastle, stated the horse had no “ spavin,” 
neither had it a “ thorough-pin,” it was merely a bursal enlargement 
on the off hock. He considered the horse sound, and of good action. 
Mr. Wilkinson, of Newcastle, who had examined the horse with the 
last-named professionals, at the farm of Mr. Blenkinsop, a relative of 
defendant, at Lobley Hill, also deposed that the horse was not “ spa- 
xxxiii. 73 
