VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
193 
Mr. Kennett .—Never mind your dreams; what is your 
knowledge of the horse, waking ] Did you ever see him 
lame ? 
Witness .—I never saw him flinch, even. 
Cross-examined .—I saw some little lumps on his feet; but 
never knew him have disease or medicine in my life. 
Edgar Offing ton , blacksmith at Durrington, had shod the 
horse, but never knew him lame. 
Mr. Kennett .—That is my case. 
The Judge said it ought to have been tried before a jury. 
The case being a peculiar one, the advocates were allowed to 
address the Judge. 
Mr. Kennett submitted, that whether the excrescences or 
ossification spoken of would produce lameness was matter of 
opinion. Mr. Burt had stated that the ossification must have 
existed six months, and this was a most important statement, 
because the defendant’s witnesses said they never observed 
either lameness or tenderness of feet. On the other side, there 
was the testimony of an eminent man, employed, on account of 
his skill, about the valuable stud of Colonel Wyndham ; and 
according to his evidence, it was impossible that the judgment 
of Mr. Mannington and Mr, Burt with regard to the excres¬ 
cences could be true; for he stated that they were, at least, an 
inch from the cartilages, and therefore could not possibly pro¬ 
duce lameness. There was the veterinary surgeon’s evidence 
pro and con.; but in order to determine which opinion was 
correct, there was an important guide in the evidence of the 
five men who had worked the horse before it went into the 
plaintiff’s hands, and since, and they never saw any lameness. 
He imputed to the respectable gentlemen examined on the 
other side only an error of judgment; but if their opinion were 
correct, those five witnesses had perjured themselves. 
Judge .—There is no imputation of perjury in the case. 
Mr. Kennett .—There must be against the five last witnesses, 
if Mr. Burt’s statement is correct. 
Mr. Williams submitted that the case had to be decided by 
the weight of evidence. The veterinary surgeons were ba¬ 
lanced in opinion. Mr. Burt’s evidence, that the ossification of 
the cartilages might not produce lameness while the horse 
worked on the soft farm, although it would shew itself when he 
worked on the hard road, seemed to be the key to the whole 
case, and relieved the Judge from imputing perjury to the last 
five witnesses. But if the horse, when worked on the hard 
road, was “ unsound,’' it was unsound for all purposes, and the 
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. 
The Judge said there was no doubt as to the warranty, and 
VOL. XXV. D d 
