VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
497 
This closing the plaintiff's case, Mr. Mendham commented at some 
length upon the evidence, characterising it as somewhat singular that 
the plaintiff had made no complaint about the horse from the 19th of 
December until the 15th of February, which was all the more wonder¬ 
ful when it was borne in mind that the parties lived only about a mile 
distant from each other. His great contention, however, was, that no 
warranty had been given by his client when the animal was sold ; and 
if he was now suffering from the unsoundness described by the 
plaintiff and his witnesses, he submitted that it was the result of inju¬ 
ries sustained while out hunting with Mr. Barnes or his family. 
The defendant said that he purchased the horse of his brother just 
before last harvest, at the cost of £20. He admitted saying to plaintiff 
that even if the horse went blind he would still be worth £15, but this 
conversation occurred before the animal was left for trial in the after¬ 
noon of the 29th of December. Nothing was said about a warranty, 
or that defendant would be accountable for his eye at all. He had no 
recollection of saying that the horse was “sound down to the ground.” 
What he would swear to saying was, that he thought the horse would 
suit plaintiff. Before he was bought Mr. Barnes said, “You sell him 
sound?” Defendant replied, u I don’t know anything to the contrary.” 
He knew the horse would not pass a “veterinary” in consequence of his 
eye; and he solemnly swore that he never engaged to stand by him. 
Defendant never warranted a horse in his life; and had no remembrance 
of telling the plaintiff that he had heard the animal had been returned 
to a former owner because of unsoundness. From the time defendant 
bought him till he sold him to Mr. Barnes, the horse had worked regu¬ 
larly on his farm, and was found to do liis work well. 
Cross-examined.—Defendant would swear positively that nothing was 
said to plaintiff about a warranty, nor anything to that effect. He did 
not think the horse was fit for a hunter at the time he sold him to 
plaintiff. 
John Bullimore , defendant’s steward, deposed to having had some 
conversation with Beckerson about the horse after the plaintiff had com¬ 
plained about his unsoundness \ in the course of which Beckerson re¬ 
marked that “ Mr. Barnes was a heavy man and not a good rider, and 
perhaps he had hurt him.” The horse did any work he was put to un¬ 
commonly well all the time Mr. Harvey had had him. 
George Hudson, another of the defendant’s labourers, and defendant’s 
brother, Mr. Charles Harvey , farmer, gave evidence showing the quali¬ 
fications of the horse while under their charge. No horse could have 
done his work better. 
His Honour said he was of opinion that a warranty had been given to 
the plaintiff when he bought the horse of the defendant, who, if he 
was not aware that the horse was actually unsound at the time, had, lie 
feared, a very .strong suspicion that there was something wrong. Mr. 
Barnes must have been raw and green indeed, if, under the circum¬ 
stances, he had purchased the horse without having received an assu¬ 
rance from the defendant that he would stand by him. 
Judgment for the plaintiff for £10 9s. 3d., being 15s. less than the 
sum claimed, which item (the veterinary surgeon’s fee) his Honour said 
could not be recovered. 
XXXIV. 
37 
