246 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
The horse was sold after it left TattersalPs for 47 guineas, was resold 
at the same price, and, eventually, Mr. Baker, a veterinary surgeon, of 
Clapham-cominon, sold him to a Mr. Edgar for £100, the horse’s sight 
being then perfect. 
Mr. Stevens, the defendant, was called, and said that he had been in 
practice as a veterinary surgeon for twenty-eight years, twenty of 
which he had passed at Newmarket, and that the fixtures, books, rings, 
&c., in Park-lane were those used by his predecessor, Mr. Henderson, 
for very many years, and were quite fit for the purposes to which they 
were put. * 
Professor Spooner was called, and stated that he had examined the 
forge with the hooks, &c., and that it was a very fit and proper place 
for shoeing horses. 
After the learned counsel had addressed the jury on behalf of their 
respective clients, 
His Lordship summed up, when 
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after some time, 
returned into court, finding a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 20 
guineas. 
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. 25. 
(Sittings in Banco , before Mr. Justice Williams and Mr. Justice 
Willes.) 
BRADY V. TODD. 
Right of a Servant to give a Warranty. 
This was an action to recover damages in consequence of a horse not 
having turned out to be sound, according to the warranty which had 
been given by the defendant’s servant. 
Mr. Justice Williams said the question now was, whether a rule to 
set aside the verdict for the plaintiff should be made absolute. The 
defendant was a tradesman in London, but he also had a farm in the 
country which was managed by his bailiff, Gregg; and the jury found 
that Gregg, in selling the horse to the plaintiff, warranted it sound and 
quiet in harness. The defendant stated—and this must be taken to be 
the truth—that he had not given authority to Gregg to give any such 
warranty. The relevant facts were that the plaintiff applied to the 
defendant to sell him the horse, and the defendant accordingly sent 
Gregg with the horse, and authorised him to sell it for thirty guineas. 
The plaintiff contended that giving a servant an article to sell implied 
an authority on his part to warrant; that it must be taken that the 
authority to sell was an authority to do all that was done in the usual 
course of a sale; and that it was usual to warrant a horse. The plain¬ 
tiff, in the opinion of the Court, failed upon this point. The question 
of warranty frequently arose upon the sale of horses; but a sale might 
be made without any warranty. If the Court should lay down that the 
servant of a person who was not a horse dealer, intrusted to sell a 
horse, had authority to warrant, they would lay masters open to new 
and unknown liability. 
Rule absolute for a nonsuit. 
