VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
621 
damage sustained through the breach of a warranty under which 
plaintiff had bought a brown mare of the defendant, and which warranty 
was given by the defendant. It seemed that on the 27th of February 
last, Mr. Turner went to Wadworth, where he saw Mr. Roebuck, who 
had informed him that he (Mr. Roebuck) had a brown mare to sell. 
The plaintiff went to see the mare, and after some examination of her 
he bought her of the defendant for forty guineas, which was the price he 
asked for her. At the same time he received a written warranty of her 
soundness from Mr. Roebuck, to the following effect:—“Wadworth, 
Feb. 2Jth, 18fil. Sold to Mr. S. E. Turner, a brown mare, rising five 
years old, which I warrant perfectly sound and free from all vice. 
Robert Roebuck.” On the day after this purchase, the plaintiff went 
again to Wadworth for the purpose of paying the defendant for the 
mare, and also fetching her away. A short time after her removal to 
the plaintiff’s stable at Tickhill it was observed, both by Mr. Turner and 
his groom, that the mare was continually putting one foot forward for 
the purpose of resting it, and continuing to do this for two or three 
days, Mr. Turner acquainted the defendant of the fact. The defendant 
Mien stated that the mare had been ridden hard, and hunted on the day 
before he sold her, and that she had also been badly shod. Knowing 
the defendant to be a respectable man, Mr. Turner naturally thought 
this a fair and legitimate reason, and that the symptom of resting her 
foot might be attributed to that cause, and therefore little notice was 
taken of it, the plaintiff being willing to rest upon his warranty, 
believing that ultimately all w r ould turn out right. On the 11th of 
March, the plaintiff went to Mr. Foljambe’s, of Osberton, that gentleman 
being at the time in want of a horse, and the result of that visit was 
that Mr. Turner was to lend Mr. Foljambe this mare for his own riding. 
The mare was forthwith sent to Osberton, and it was used by Mr. 
Foljambe for about five weeks, during which time it was noticed by both 
Mr. Foljambe and his grooms that the mare was continually pointing 
its foot and resting it in the same manner as previously observed by the 
plaintiff and his groom. At the end of that time the mare was returned 
to Mr. Turner, and then it was he found that the mare was positively 
lame, and on the 7tii of May he had her examined by an eminent vete¬ 
rinary surgeon, Mr. Taylor, of Nottingham. That gentleman confirmed 
the plaintiff in his opinion of the mare’s unsoundness—that she had a 
degree of malformation in one of her fore feet, which was the result of 
an unsoundness of the hoof which had been going on for sometime, and 
it was his opinion that she was unsound at the time she w r as sold by the 
defendant. The mare was subsequently examined (yesterday morning) 
by Professor Spooner, of London, and he also pronounced the horse 
unsound, and gave it as his opinion that it was so at the time of sale. 
Before Professor Spooner’s examination, the mare had been offered to 
Mr. Roebuck, who would not receive it back again, and therefore it was 
sold, and Mr. Roebuck bought her for twenty-two guineas, and she is now 
in his possession. After stating these facts, Mr. Whitfield for a moment 
drew the attention of the jury to what was the legal bearing of unsound¬ 
ness, pointing out that if at the time of sale this mare had any disease or 
disorder about it which would at all interfere with her work and useful¬ 
ness at that time, she was in point of law unsound, and such being the 
case his client was entitled to their verdict. Therefore the question 
they would have to consider would be, had the mare at the time of sale 
any disorder or disease, and of this he thought he should be able to 
fully satisfy them. 
;V/\ Whitfield then called a number of witnesses, including the 
