VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
247 
HEDON COUNTY COURT. 
CALEY V. BRAIMBRIDGE. 
Glanders . 
The plaintiff is a farmer at Garton, and the defendant an omnibus 
proprietor at Withernwick. 
Mr. Wutson, of Hedon, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Preston, of 
Hull, for the defendant. 
The action in this case was brought to recover the sum of £21 10s. 
for breach of contract, and expenses connected therewith. From the 
evidence it appeared that in September last the plaintiff and defendant 
exchanged horses, but the defendant, not being satisfied with the mare 
which he had taken from the plaintiff, in about a fortnight afterwards 
asked him to take the mare back and let him (the defendant) have 
another horse, called “Prince,” which the plaintiff had. Having heard 
that the mare had been kicking whilst in the "bus, the plaintiff asked 
the defendant if she was any worse, to which the latter replied that she 
had hurt her leg, but had only a slight swelling, which would go down 
in two or three days. The plaintiff asked the defendant particularly a 
second time if she was as sound as when he let him (the defendant) 
have her, and the defendant answered that she was as good and sound as 
she was the first day he got her. The plaintiff sold the mare to Francis 
Bray, cattle-dealer, of Barrow, who sold her to a man named Gascoyne, 
in whose possession she was condemned of having the glanders, and 
ordered to be shot by the magistrates. Gascoyne sued Bray for 
damages, and recovered; Bray sued the plaintiff Caley, who compro¬ 
mised the matter by the payment of £20; and the plaintiff having 
learnt, and it being proved by his witnesses, that at the time his mare 
went into the defendant’s possession he had two glandered horses, one 
of which (a short time after the re-exchange of horses between the 
plaintiff and defendant) was sold by the defendant to Mr. Hunter, of 
Hull, cab proprietor, in whose possession it was condemned of having 
the glanders, and was shot. He (the plaintiff) now sought to prove that 
his mare had got the glanders whilst in the defendant’s possession, from 
having been brought into contact with glandered horses; and it was 
contended that the defendant’s words, that “ she was as sound and good 
as when he first got her,” constituted a contract, which contract, on the 
plaintiff’s mare subsequently being shot for the glanders, it was sub¬ 
mitted that the plaintiff’s case was fully proved to have been broken. 
For the defence, Mr. Preston very ably argued the case upon the facts 
deposed to by the witnesses called for the plaintiff’s case, and maintained 
that there had been no breach of contract; that when the plaintiff ques¬ 
tioned the defendant respecting the state of the mare, it was merely in 
respect to the accident, and not in respect to its being glandered, as he 
did not then know that the defendant had any glandered horses in his 
possession, and if he had been questioning the defendant as to its being 
free from glanders, he submitted that as they had it in evidence that 
the glanders was an incipient disease to which a horse might be subject 
for two or three years, he submitted that the mare might have been 
so diseased before she went into defendant’s possession, or that she 
might have got the disease after she subsequently left the plaintiff’s pos¬ 
session. 
After hearing the defendant’s evidence, which was to the effect 
that since he let the plaintiff have his mare back, he had had to shoot 
two horses that had got the glanders, which, with the one sold to Mr. 
Hunter, of Hull, made three which had to be shot. 
His Honour returned a verdict for the defendant. 
