EXTRAORDINARY FEROCITY IN A HORSE. 
468 
must of necessity impair speed, and consequently diminish 
the impetus of attack, in which velocity is as powder.— Times , 
Jime 28, 1852. 
EXTRAORDINARY FEROCITY IN A HORSE. 
[From the French paper.] 
A case of ferocity in a horse, rarely equalled, has given 
rise to law proceedings before the courts of Rouen. On the 
24th November last, a farmer, named Blanchard, of Verclive 
(Eure), possessed a horse, and in his presence, and with his 
consent, a horse-dealer, named Lavoipierre, sold it to a farmer 
named Delaisement, of Corny. The next day Blanchard 
told a young man in his service to convey the horse to De¬ 
laisement. The latter, however, refused to receive it, on the 
ground that he had learned that it was vicious and dangerous. 
In returning, the horse several times attempted to throw the 
young man, and at length, becoming quite furious at the 
restraint which the rider imposed on him, he bounded erect 
in the air, and succeeded in getting him off his back. The 
animal then rushed on him, bit him in the breast, and tried 
to trample on him. The young man defended himself as 
well as he was able, but the horse caught the flesh of his 
thigh in his teeth, and tore it off in the most savage manner, 
leaving the bone exposed. He then went some little distance 
and with his fore-paws formed a hole of some depth, and, 
then returning to his victim, who was lying almost senseless 
on the ground, he smelt around him, as if reflecting how he 
could best drag him to the hole. Some noise, however, at 
the moment struck his ear, and he galloped home. When 
he arrived, his mouth was stained with blood, and bits of flesh 
were still adhering to it. The young man, who was so dread¬ 
fully treated, had to have his leg amputated. He subse¬ 
quently brought an action against Blanchard, Delaisement, 
and Lavoipierre, to recover 6000 francs damages. Blanchard 
contended that he was not responsible, as he had sold the 
horse some days before the accident to Lavoipierre. Lavoi¬ 
pierre alleged that this was not true, and all that he had had 
to do with the horse was to act as agent in the sale. De¬ 
laisement maintained that, as he had refused to receive the 
animal because he had been deceived with respect to its bad 
qualities, his agreement to purchase was null, and, therefore, 
he was not the proprietor. The tribunal held that no sale to 
Lavoipierre had been satisfactorily made out by Blanchard, 
