VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 369 
Mr. Smith, of Doncaster appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wain¬ 
wright for the defendant. 
Mr. Smith , in opening the case, said, that the horse was sold to the 
plaintiff on the 24th of April, 1860, for £32 lUs., by Mr. Henry Earn- 
shaw, a relative of the plaintiff’s, who acted as agent for Mr. Barstow. 
At the time the purchase money was paid, Mr. Barstow gave Mr. 
Earnshaw a warranty in writing that the horse was free from blemish 
and sound in all respects ; but shortly afterwards the plaintiff discovered 
that the horse was unsound in his feet and in his wind ; and in conse¬ 
quence he was used with great caution, and turned out to grass, as it was 
thought that by these means he might recover, and Mr. Earnshaw wished 
for no dispute if it could be possibly avoided. The horse was examined 
by two veterinary surgeons, but did not recover. A letter was in conse¬ 
quence written to Mr. Henry Earnshaw by the plaintiff, explaining the 
deficiencies of the horse, and stating that it had been injured by previous 
hard work. In answer to this, Mr. Barstow wrote a letter, saying that 
the plaintiff must have worked the horse hard himself and injured him, 
and that he should not take it back. Further correspondence ensued, 
and ultimately the present action was brought. 
Mr. Raicden Earnshaw , the plaintiff, was then called and said—I met 
Mr. Henry Earnshaw on the 6th of April, 1860, who told me that he 
had a horse for sale ; I went over to Rawcliffe on the 12tli of April, and 
tried the horse ; and afterwards saw Mr. Henry at Pontefract, and sent 
a message to Mr. Barstow that I would have the horse. I gave £32 10s. 
for it, and had lOs. returned. I took it home on the 24th of April. The 
next day I rode it to Brierly, and noticed that it was rickety. The 
next day I sent it to my son, at Wath, and it then went to Barnsley 
I sent the horse to grass on the 3d of June, because my son complained 
of its being rickety. The horse, however, got no better. I did not 
return him, because Mr. Barstow said, at Pontefract, that no doubt 
after a little rest all would be right. 
By Mr. Wainwright —Proctor, who was Mr. Barstow’s groom, said 
when I purchased the horse, that it had lately done the work of two 
horses. I did not tell Mr. Barstow that it had gone in a rickety manner. 
I never asked Mr. Barstow to give a warranty before I placed it before 
him ; he signed it without hesitation. The horse was examined by a 
veterinary surgeon on the 8th of August. 
Mr. Wm. Earnshaw. —I am the son of the plaintiff. The horse was 
purchased for ine. It went to grass on the 3d of June, and stopped 
until the beginning of July. In the early part of July 1 went with the 
horse to Doncaster. On the 21st I went from Wath to Doncaster; on 
the 30th to Barnsley; on the 1st or 2d of August, to Wentworth House; 
on the 6th to Doncaster, for the last time. On the 8th the horse was 
examined by Mr. Stones. I had observed that the horse went very 
rickety, and appeared to be unsound. 
By Mr. Wainwright. —I did not know that it was vvliat is called a 
“ short struck” horse. 
Mr. Stones said—I am a veterinary surgeon, and a member of the 
R.C.V.S. On the 12th of May I was called in to examine the horse, it 
having caught a cold ; it recovered from the cold. On the 8th of August 
I again examined it, and found it to be suffering from chronic laminitis , 
in both its fore feet. 1 examined the hoofs and found them hot, and 
there were indentations around the coronet, indicating that there had 
been inflammatory action some time before. In my opinion the disease 
existed previous to the 24th of April, and proceeded from hard work 
upon the road. I tested his wind by attempting to strike him, which 
