498 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Holt, Monday , June 24. 
There were about 100 cases on the list, but the only one that created 
any interest was the following : 
PURCHASE OF A HORSE; WARRANTY; ARCHER V. RINGER. 
This was an action to recover the sum of £25 5s. 9d., being loss 
arising out of the re-sale of a chestnut gelding horse bought under an 
alleged verbal guarantee of soundness, &c. As is usual in suits of this 
kind, the question to be decided was—Was there a warranty, or was 
there not ? Mr. Drake, of Dereham, appeared for the plaintiff, Robert 
Archer, dealer. Great Snoring; and Mr. Mendham , of Norwich, for the 
defendant, John Ringer, farmer, Briston. 
The plaintiff deposed—In the early part of last January, I went to 
defendants to look at a horse which he had for sale, and on asking him 
if he would warrant him sound, he replied, “He’s perfectly sound, 
quiet to ride, but never harnessed; but I shan't give a written warranty.” 
Defendant agreed to keep him for a month for me on account of the 
severe weather which existed at the time. I again saw Mr. Ringer, at 
Cawston fair on the 1st of February, and asked if he would keep the 
horse another week. He expressed his willingness to do so, but the 
horse was drawn on the 5th, and the price paid for him was £40. When- 
I went for the horse, defendant said he had a slight cold, but that it was 
of no consequence—that it would soon wear off. I thought so myself. 
From that time the horse became gradually worse. I therefore had 
him put into a loose box, where he was kept ten days before being tried 
by my man, who, on returning from exercising him, complained about 
his restiveness. 1 afterwards tried him myself, and never saw a more 
restive beast in my life. I subsequently wrote to defendant several 
times, telling him to come and see the horse, and to bring with him the 
man (Richard Perry) who informed me of Mr. Ringer having the 
animal for sale, but no notice was taken of my communications. After 
this, I saw the defendant, and asked him to take back the horse; to 
which he replied that he considered such a request as very childish. I 
told him I did not think there was anything childish in it—in giving 
£40 for a four-vear-old horse, believing him to be sound, and, on finding 
that he was not what had been represented, in requesting the seller to 
take him back into his own hands. The horse having been examined 
by Mr. George Baldwin, veterinary surgeon, and pronounced unsound, 
I gave the defendant notice that he would be sold by auction, and that 
defendant would be held responsible for any loss. The horse was ac¬ 
cordingly sold on the 28th of March, at Messrs. Spelman’s repository 
at Norwich, where he fetched £20 9s. 6d. There, was 5s. charged for 
sending him there ; the commission on the sale was £1 3s. 3d.; the cost 
of his keep up to the time he was sold amounted to £4 7s., making a 
total of £5 15s. 3d. to be deducted from the price he realised, reducing 
the actual sum he had been worth to £14 14s. 3d., which being set 
against the £40 paid to defendant, left a difference out of pocket of 
£25 5s. 9d., the amount sued for. 
Cross-examined.—The time I have charged for the horse’s keep is 
from the 5th of February till the 27th of March, the rate being at 12s. 
per week. I kept him in the stable ten days or a fortnight before trying 
liim. I punched two of his teeth out to bring his mouth forward. [A 
laugh.J I was to have him a week on trial. I do not recollect defen¬ 
dant saying when I first saw him on the subject, “ If you take him now, 
