304 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
lent, as stated by the defendant, the treatment it had received was 
improper, and showed such an amount of negligence on the part of the 
defendant as would render him liable for the value of the pony. He par¬ 
ticularly alluded to the evidence of Mr. Taylor, the veterinary surgeon, 
as to the cause of death. Mr. Park also contended that the defendant 
ought, in the first instance, to have sent for a veterinary surgeon, and 
that instead of so doing, having taken upon himself the responsibility 
of prescribing for the pony, he had, according to the ruling of Lord 
Ellenborough in the case of Dean v. Keate, rendered himself liable for 
the consequences. 
The judge having carefully summed up the evidence, the jury 
returned a verdict for the plaintiff. 
Stamford v. Kirk. 
The plaintiff was a carter, residing at Hull; and the defendant a 
fanner, residing at Hedon, 
The action was one to recover the sum of £10 Is. Qd. for damages for 
a breach of warranty by the defendant, on the sale of a horse by him 
to the plaintiff. 
Mr. Roberts , of the firm of England, Saxelbye, and Roberts, of Hull, 
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson, of Hedon, for the defendant:. 
The plaintiff, in his examination, proved that he met the defendant in 
a public-house at Hedon, one day during the latter part of August last. 
He wanted a horse, and some conversation ensued between them as to 
a horse belonging to defendant, which he said would just suit plaintiff. 
Eventually they went to a field where the horse (the subject of the 
action) was ploughing, and some further conversation took place between 
them, in which defendant said it was a good, honest, and sound horse. 
These words, or others similiar, were again used on their returning a 
few minutes afterwards to the public-house, and plaintiff agreed to take 
the horse for £18. Shortly afterwards he found it to be unsound, and 
it was sold by public auction and realized £9 5s., which, after deducting 
the costs of sale and keep, made the plaintiff a loser of £10 Is. 6d., which 
sum he sought to recover by the present action. 
The landlord of the public-house, Mr. Josiah Maddison, was called as 
witness for the plaintiff, and when examined by Mr. Roberts, completely 
corroborated the plaintiff’s evidence as to the words used by defendant; 
but on his cross-examination by Mr. Watson, he altered his statement 
considerably, and appeared not to be aware that the words alleged by 
plaintiff had been uttered in his hearing by defendant. 
Mr. Henry Taylor, of Hull, veterinary surgeon, was also called by 
plaintiff, and proved the horse to be unsound from stringhalt in both 
hind legs, and bone-spavin of the near hock, and also lame in the 
off fore-leg. 
The defendant did not deny the unsoundness, but denied giving any 
warranty or making use of the words alleged by the plaintiff. The 
evidence on his behalf was of the contradictory nature usual in these 
cases. 
His Honour, in 'summing up, told the jury that if they believed the 
defendant had used the words “good, sound, and honest horse,’’ as 
alleged by the plaintiff, he should rule that to be a warranty, and their 
verdict must be for the plaintiff. 
The jury, however, returned a verdict for the defendant. 
