VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
187 
The plaintiff, who is a raff-merchant inWellington Street, Hull, sued 
defendant, who is a farmer residing near Burton Constable, for £25 
damages, under the following circumstances : The plaintiff, Mr. Wallis, 
having some time in Julv last informed defendant that he was wanting 
a rally horse, the latter replied that he had one which would just suit. 
The horse was brought over to Hull and shown to plaintiff, who said it 
was a better horse than he had expected to see. Accordingto the plaintiff's 
statement, the defendant said the horse was perfectly sound, and £25 
was asked for it. The plaintiff paid £10 down, and agreed to pay the 
remainder in a fortnight afterwards, if the horse was what it was repre¬ 
sented to be. Subsequently, the whole of the purchase money was paid, 
when the plaintiff found that his horse did not walk properly, but did 
not say anything about it to Mr. Caley for five or six weeks at least. 
In December, Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Freeman, veterinary surgeons, 
were called in to inspect the horse, and they found it was diseased, 
being affected with ringbone, or an ossification of the pastern joints, 
and plaintiff wrote to defendant, informing him that the horse had 
turned out badly. Another letter was afterwards addressed to defendant 
by plaintiff’s attorney, offering the alternative of a reference or an action, 
but defendant preferred the latter course. 
Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Freeman gave evidence as to the time they 
thought it would require to produce the ossification, and they both 
thought it would require eight or nine months; but the latter, who had 
watched some cases from their commencement, thought it possible that 
the parts might acquire an ossified state in eight or ten weeks, though 
when assistance was procured at first the cases were generally cured. 
A Mr. Neicmarch was also called to prove that when the bargain was 
made, defendant had said the horse was sound, and that plaintiff had 
said he would give what was asked for if the horse proved to be what 
was said. 
A discussion then arose as to whether the statement of defendant that 
the horse was sound amounted to a warranty, the Judge thinking it 
did not. 
Mr. Chester contended that as the horse was bought on condition of 
the representation being correct, a special warranty was constituted. 
This the Judge thought correct. 
Mr. Petting ell, in his defence, submitted that in the first place there 
was no warranty given, and that if there was, the horse was not in an 
unsound condition at the time of being sold. The sale was made at the 
plaintiff’s suggestion, and he had been satisfied with it at the time, and 
not a word was said about warranty. He also commented on the 
admission that the disease might show itself in eight or ten weeks, 
and contended that it had arisen since the horse had been in plaintiff’s 
possession. 
Defendant and another witness were called to prove that no mention 
of warranty had been made at the time of the bargain. 
His Honour, in summing up, observed that the first point the jury 
would have to decide would be, whether a warranty had been given’; 
and if they thought one had been given, they were to satisfy themselves 
whether the horse had been diseased at the time of sale to the plaintiff. 
The most conflicting part of the evidence was, where the plaintiff alleged 
he had informed defendant soon after the horse was in his possession 
that it was unsound, whereas defendant denied that anything was said 
about it until the first letter was written, though he had frequently seen 
him in the mean time. It was also admitted that the disease might have 
been generated in eight or ten weeks, and in the letter, written five 
