123 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
BEVERLEY COUNTY COURT. 
MOUNSELL V. HARPER. 
This was an action to recover the sum of £16 5.?., for the breach of 
a warranty on the sale of a horse, it being- alleged that the defendant, 
on selling the horse to the plaintiff, warranted it to be sound and free 
from vice, whereas it turned out to be a “ wind-sucker.” 
Mr. Sylvester appeared for the plaintiff, who is the major and ad¬ 
jutant of the East York Militia; and Mr. Pettingell, of Hull, for the 
defendant, who is a farmer residing at Leven, near Beverley. 
Mr. Sylvester , having stated the case, called Major Mounsell, who 
said that, on the 5th of July last, Mr. Harper brought a black mare 
to his house. He asked Mr. Harper what lie would take for her, and 
Mr. Harper said £40; but he afterwards stated that £38 was the lowest 
sum he could take. He (witness) said he would give him £38, providing 
the mare was sound. He afterwards tried her on the Molescroft Road. 
Said to Harper he should like to have her examined. Harper said, 
what was the use of having her examined, and that the mare was all 
sound and free from vice. Harper, however, consented to have her 
examined, and went to Mr. Holmes, veterinary surgeon, who was not 
then at home. They went again on Saturday, the 7th, and the mare 
was examined in Mr. Holmes’s yard. Harper said that the mare was 
perfectly sound and free from vice. He bought the horse on that re¬ 
presentation, and Mr. Harper left his servant for about ten days to take 
charge of her. On the 16th of July, his own groom came, and two or 
three days after he had been in his service he complained to him 
(witness), and in consequence of that he went to Mr, Holmes. Mr. 
Holmes did not see anything the matter with the mare at first, and left 
the stable, but he came back again afterwards and did so. A few days 
after he got Mr. Holmes’s written opinion. He saw Mr. Harper and 
told him he had sold him an unsound horse, but Mr. Harper only 
laughed at it, and refused to give him either his money back ora receipt. 
He (witness) told him he would seek justice in a court of law. 
George Holmes stated that he was a veterinary surgeon, and examined 
a black mare on the 7th of July. Both plaintiff and defendant were 
present. He was with the mare half an hour. The certificate produced 
was the one which he gave. He examined her subsequently. He was 
informed something was the matter with her. He examined her the 
second time at the Barracks. He then found she was a “ wind-sucker.” 
“ Wind-sucking” was first a vice, then formed a disease. It was perhaps 
one of the worst of diseases. Animals which were “ wind-suckers ” 
inhaled a quantity of air, and the stomach became weakened, and di¬ 
gestion was imperfectly carried on. 
Other witnesses were then called to give corroborative evidence as 
to the unsoundness of the animal. 
Mr. Pettingell addressed the jury for the defence. lie then called 
Mr. Harper, of Leven, who stated that he recollected negotiating with 
Major Mounsell about the mare. The plaintiff told him he wanted a 
steady horse; and he (witness) said he had a very useful mare. He 
saw the major again afterwards, and the major asked him the price of 
the mare, and he told him £38. The major tried her, and said he was very 
