370 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE 
caused the animal to make a noise when taking in his breath, and indi¬ 
cated unsound ness in his wind. 
Mr. R. Nicholson, veterinary surgeon, Womersley, who was also 
called in, gave corroborative testimony to the above. 
Mr. Benjamin Cartledge , veterinary surgeon, and member of the 
Board of Examiners, Sheffield, said—I examined the horse on Friday 
last, and found it to be a “ whistler,’* which is an unsoundness. I also 
discerned, round the near foot, indentations, being evidence of previous 
existing inflammation. Judging from the evidence, coupled with the 
present state of the horse, it was, not in my opinion, sound on the 24th 
of April. 
This being the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Wainwright addressed the 
court, urging that the horse was sound in every respect, when sold by 
Mr. Barstow, and he would call witnesses to prove that such was the 
case, and if so he submitted that he was entitled to a verdict. 
Mr. Charles Whittam , horsebreaker, was then called, and said, I have 
known the horse four years, and never knew it to be unsound; it never 
went lame, but had low action, and was a hard goer. 
Thomas Proctor, groom to the defendant, gave similar testimony. 
Rev. M. W. Barstow, the defendant, said—I had the horse nearly 
twelve months, and never knew it to be lame. There was nothing said 
about a warranty until the document was put into my hands by the 
plaintiff. 
Mr. Naylor, veterinary surgeon, Wakefield, said, I saw the horse in 
September last, and again in November, and having examined it, I found 
it free from lameness, certainly no chronic laminitis was present. I 
tried him as regarded his wind in November, and found him to be a 
“ whistler,” but considered it a recent affair. I observed that the 
indentations were nothing but what was natural. The putting out the 
horse to grass in such a season as it was last summer might make it 
come up a “whistler.” 
Mr. Dray, veterinary surgeon, Leeds, said—On the 11th January of 
this year, at the request of both parties, I examined the horse, and found 
it to be free from any blemish whatever, and nothing to indicate that he 
had been suffering from any chronic disorder of his feet. After having 
heard the evidence, I am quite satisfied that the horse was not in April 
suffering from chronic laminitis. 
Mr. H. Earnshaw, and Mr Cuthhert , veterinary surgeons, gave similar 
opinions to the above. 
Mr. Moccon was called by Mr. Smith, and said—I sold the horse at 
Wakefield, for £15. Mr. Naylor said, at the sale, it was lame. I also 
remared that it was lame. 
This closed the defendant’s case, and Mr. Smith addressed the jury at 
some length in reply, contending that the facts were in favour of the 
plaintiff; that discovery of unsoundness had been made, and notice given 
soon after the sale; and that the plaintiff’s veterinary evidence was more 
to be relied upon than the defendant’s. 
His Honour summed up with great care and minuteness, pointing out 
how nicely balanced the evidence on both sides was, and leaving it for 
the jury to say which was in the right. 
The jury retired, and on their return found a verdict for the 
plaintiff for the amount claimed. Judgment for plaintiff accordingly. 
