m 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
The plaintiff said that on the 29th of December last, defendant and 
his man (John Bnllimore) brought the horse for him to look at. On 
doing so, plaintiff remarked that the animal did not seem right. De¬ 
fendant replied that he had a little tip on the eye, but that was not 
much; otherwise he was “ right—all over right,” which he repeated 
several times. Plaintiff asked defendant if he would stand by him, and 
he replied that he would. Plaintiff further said, “You sell the horse 
sound ?” Defendant replied, “Yes; he is sound—right down all to 
the ground.” The horse was then left for trial if he was quiet; and in 
the evening Mr. Harvey called for his money, the price agreed upon 
having been £24. The horse was afterwards put to various kinds of 
work between that and the 15th of February, the first time he again 
saw the defendant, when he told him of the state of the animal. Mr. 
Harvey advised him to keep the horse a little longer. Plaintiff said he 
would not like to begin to doctor him, as it might be used against him ; 
when defendant replied that he should not take advantage of that. On 
the 19th February, plaintiff again saw defendant, and informed him 
that he should return the horse next day. Defendant answered that he 
had not given a “ written” warranty with the horse, and should refuse 
to take him back. Plaintiff said, if he made a difference between a 
written warranty and his word, he should consider it a swindle. The 
horse was sent and refused, and was finally sold at Norwich, on the 6th 
of March, for £15 15s. 
Cross-examined.—Defendant did not say, “With the exception of the 
eye, he is all right to the best of my knowledge.” After he received 
payment, he said, “ Suppose he loses his eye, he will be worth £15.” 
Plaintiff did not say, “ I suppose you sell him sound with the exception 
of the eye.” The horse was paid for in two cheques, one of which was 
post-dated, being made payable in April. Plaintiff was advised not to 
stop payment of it, as defendant might bring a cross-action for the 
whole. The horse was put to various kinds of work—at the plough, 
in the muck-cart, and in the family carriage, and hunted with the 
hounds. Two of his teeth were knocked out in the hope that this 
would help him to feed better. [A laugh.] The last time he was out 
with the hounds was on the 5th of February; and previous to that 
time there was nothing that he was put to which he would not do. 
William Beckerson , the plaintiff’s steward, deposed to having heard 
defendant, when he brought the horse for his master to look at, tell 
Mr. Barnes that he was “right—all over right;” that “he was 
sound—right down all to the ground.” His future experience with the 
animal proved that these statements were far from correct. 
Cross-examined.—The horse was left with olaintiff all the afternoon 
x 
of the 29th of December, during which he was worked, and in the 
evening was bought. Witness did not hear defendant say, “Suppose 
he loses his eye, he will be worth £15.” 
Mr. William Shipley , veterinary surgeon, said he was requested by 
the plaintiff to examine the horse in dispute on the 15th of February. 
A twelvemonth previously he had seen the animal, and then reported 
him as unsound from enlarged hock, although incipient spavin was then 
in existence. When witness saw him again on the 6th of March, he 
found a complete cataract in the eye, produced, in his opinion, by the 
continuous inflammation to which it had long been subject. The horse 
was also suffering from diseased kidneys. In cross-examination, Mr. 
Shipley said that the animal was a “familiar friend” of his; and in 
reply to the court, stated that it was bone-spavin with which he was af¬ 
fected, a twelvemonth before the 15th of February last. 
