EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 109 
Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Hale were counsel for the defen¬ 
dant. 
“ This was an action brought to recover damages for a breach of 
warranty of three horses sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, who also 
complained that the animals had the glanders, which disease they 
communicated to several other horses belonging to him, all of which 
died. The plaintiff was a carrier residing at Croydon, and the defendant 
is the contractor for the omnibus traffic of the South-Western Railway, 
having a large establishment near the Waterloo station. In the month 
of June last the defendant sold to the plaintiff three horses for the 
price of 30/. They were placed in the stables of the plaintiff. One of 
them died, on the day after it was delivered, of either farcy or glanders. 
Ten days afterwards another horse died, and, at different intervals of 
time, several others of the same disease. The defendant’s case was that 
there had been no warranty, and that it was highly improbable that the 
defendant should warrant horses for which respectively 12/., 15/., and 
31. only had been given ; that they were free from disease when they 
left the defendant’s stable, and that the glanders originated in a gray 
Belgian horse which had died in the plaintiff’s own stables. It was also 
said that the plaintiff had not thought of bringing the present action 
until he was sued for the price of an omnibus sold to him by the 
defendant. 
“The trial, having lasted the whole day, was not concluded when the 
Court rose.” 
“The trial (part heard yesterday) was concluded this morning (Jan. 23.) 
It seemed clear that the defendant both before and after the sale of 
the three horses had sent horses to the knacker’s to be killed, but 
on the question whether or not they had the glanders, and, indeed, on 
every important point in the case, the evidence was extremely contra¬ 
dictory. The witnesses on either side were examined and cross-examined 
at great length ; but the main questions for the consideration of the 
jury, as laid down by the learned Judge in a most careful and elaborate 
summing up, were—Did the defendant warrant the horses at all? 
Were they afflicted with the farcy or glanders ? Had the defendant the 
farcy or glanders in his stable before he sold these horses ? if so, did he 
know it ? Did the farcy or glanders of which the plaintiff’s horses died 
originate with the defendant’s horses, or with the gray Belgian horse ? 
“ The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 124/. 2s., and 
stated that they allowed 20/. for the two horses sold by the defendant to 
the plaintiff which had died, and 967. for the horses belonging to the 
plaintiff which also had died. The remainder of the sum, deducting for 
the value of the carcases, was made up by the allowance of veterinary 
expenses and the loss on the omnibus, which had broken down and been 
resold.—Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 124/. 2s.” 
XXXII. 
15 
