VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
499 
you can have him a week on trial; and if you don’t like him, you can 
bring him back at the end of that time, and I will take him again.” I 
will not swear Mr. Ringer said, “I will not give a warranty;” but I 
will swear he said, “ I will not give a written warranty.” Perry was 
present when the bargain was made, and heard what passed. Before I 
had him taken out for trial, I had given him a few balls to prepare him 
for the season; but he got no medicine, as in the state of his health he 
would not stand that. Mr. Baldwin pronounced him unsound in his 
eyes from ophthalmia. I have been a dealer twenty-eight years, and 
consider I should be a good judge of a horse. I have returned a few 
horses I have purchased; but this is the first action I have ever brought 
to recover compensation in damages for breach of warranty. At the 
time of making the purchase, I examined the horse so far as the weather 
would permit. There was no external blemish about him, nor indeed 
did I discover any defect whatever. The 27th of February is the date 
of the first letter I sent to Mr. Ringer, asking him to take the horse 
back, although 1 had made personal complaints to him previously on the 
subject of his not coming up to the warranty he had given me when I 
bought him. 
Re-examined.—I distinctly said to defendant before concluding the 
bargain, “ You sell the horse sound ?” when he replied as I have already 
stated. The teeth that were taken out were those that he would have 
shed in the course of the spring, and the want of which could in no 
way depreciate the value of the animal. 
William Flood deposed.—I saw the horse mounted when the plaintiff 
had him taken out for trial. He was thoroughly restive. 
Cross-examined—I have heard that Messrs. Spelman’s groom can 
make a horse do anything. [Laughter.] I have had considerable ex¬ 
perience in horses ; but I do not think that punching a couple of teeth 
out would make a really quiet horse restive. 
Mr. Mendham. —You never had a dentist about you; I suppose?— 
Witness —Oh, yes ; I’ve a bad tooth now. [Renewed laughter.] 
George Baldwin , veterinary surgeon, said.—On being called to ex¬ 
amine the horse in question, i found him unsound from constitutional 
ophthalmia, but cannot state how long it had been in existence. 
Cross-examined.—I mean by “ constitutional,” something that exists 
internally. 
By the Court. —I hardly think that the shutting up of the horse in a 
hot stable for several weeks would alone produce such a degree of in¬ 
flammation as to cause the ophthalmia under which I found the animal 
suffering. The date of my seeing the horse was the 19th of March. 
This closing the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Mendham 
submitted that there was no case to answer; but the learned judge held 
that there was so far as related to restiveness. Upon this. 
The defendant deposed.—When the plaintiff and Perry came to me 
about the horse now in dispute, he was in my yard along with other 
horses. He was not tied up. On a halter being put on his neck, he 
was led out. I ran him first, and then Perry. Mr. Archer asked if I 
would warrant him ? I said, “ No. I have lived eight or ten years 
with an uncle who never warranted a horse ; and he told me if ever 1 
sold one, never to warrant him. And I intend to follow his advice.” I 
said I knew he was quiet, and I believed he was a sound horse. I knew 
he was quiet because I have ridden him, and seen Perry ride him. 
Cross-examined.—Plaintiff never asked for a written warranty. I 
told him I would not warrant him in any respect. I admit promising 
to receive the horse back after a week’s trial, but it was on condition 
