VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
741 
It was proposed by Mr. Gamgee , and seconded by Mr. 
Burley, that a committee be formed to consider what 
steps should be taken to protect the interests of the 
profession. The committee being named, the motion was 
carried. 
E. Braby, 
Secretary pro tem. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
BAIL COURT.— November 14th. 
{Sittings at Nisi Prias, before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Common Jury. 
DALLEY V BROWNE. 
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. J. A. Russell were counsel for the 
plaintiff, and iMr. Serjeant Shee and Mr. Gray for the defendant. 
The plaintiff had formerly been a jockey, but was now a trainer of 
horses for hunting, and he brought this action to recover £60 from the 
defendant upon a breach of warranty of a horse. The defendant, a 
farmer, had a horse for sale, the plaintiff went to see him, and he ob¬ 
served that the horse had been fired, and named that fact to the de¬ 
fendant, who said it was for an enlargement of the coronet, and that 
the other leg had been fired in order to make both legs alike. The de¬ 
fendant asked £80 for the horse ; the plaintiff said that was too much 
for a blemished horse, but he would give £60 if the defendant would 
warrant him sound. The defendant refused to accept that sum, and the 
plaintiff went away. Soon afterwards the defendant wrote to the plaintiff 
to say he would take the £60. The plaintiff agreed to this, provided that 
the defendant would warrant the horse sound. The plaintiff went and 
paid the £60, and received from the agent of the defendant a warranty. 
This sale took place in December. In the following March the plaintiff 
had the horse examined, and the horse was said to have been fired for 
ringbone. The plaintiff then wrote to the defendant to say that the 
horse was unsound, and after some correspondence the horse was sold 
at Aldridge’s for £22. 
The defence was that the warranty did not extend to the firing, as 
that was to be seen, and that it was confined to those things which were 
not visible; that ringbone was not one of the diseases to which the 
warranty extended. 
There was contradiction in the evidence. 
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages, £39 13.?. 
