118 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
On the 13tli March, the plaintiff bought from the defendant for £34 a 
black gelding, the latter giving him a warranty that it “ was sound and 
a good worker.’' Plaintiff worked the horse for some time, when it 
became ill, and he decided upon parting with it. Having been told that 
the horse had got side-bones, he communicated the fact to the defen¬ 
dant, who said that the defect was not side-bones, but that it was merely 
the peculiar formation of the animal’s foot, which its dam also pos¬ 
sessed. The plaintiff, in June, entered into a contract with Mr. Clewes, 
of Manchester, to sell the horse; and for this purpose it was taken to 
Manchester and examined by a respectable veterinary surgeon, Mr. 
Worthington, who pronounced it to be unsound from having side- 
bones. The consequence was, Clewes refused to purchase it. The 
plaintiff then took it back to the defendant, who refused to take it. 
On 17tli September, the plaintiff sold the horse for £20 5s., the ex¬ 
pense of the sale reduced that sum to £19 4s., which was the sum 
realised on the sale by the plaintiff, who now sought to recover the 
difference between the sum he gave for it to the defendant and the sum 
realised by the sale. He (Mr. Parrott) should call persons to prove 
that the horse w as suffering from side-bones when the warranty was 
given ; therefore he confidently anticipated a verdict for his client. 
The plaintiff was then called, and stated that he bought the horse 
from the defendant on 13th March, on a written warranty that it was 
sound and a good worker. When he was about selling it to Mr. Clewes 
he was bid thirty guineas for it, but upon Mr. Worthington saying it 
was not sound, Clewes would not have it at all. When he took it back 
to the defendant the latter said he should not lose by it, he would get 
him a customer. After detailing the same particulars as those men¬ 
tioned by Mr. Parrott, he was cross-examined by 
Mr. Cooper .—Is not much acquainted with horses, and never had one 
before in his life. Used it about a v 7 eek at Talk-o’th-Hill for drawing 
coals. Afterwards lent it to his brother, who used it for agricultural 
purposes for about a month. Then brought it to Macclesfield and used 
it for any sort of a carting job he got hold of. Used it in drawing 
manure to the Moss. The Moss is an awkward place for a cart and 
horse. Does not recollect telling any one, through fear, because the 
horse was up to its knees in mud, to lead it, as he was afraid. Con¬ 
tinued to work the horse till work became scarce. Found out then that 
it was not sound. Took it to Mr. Maxfield, veterinary surgeon, of 
Congleton, on 10th July. Mr. Bullock, of Macclesfield, did not see it 
till 23d June. It was driven in a spring cart to Buxton twice. It was 
afterwards taken to the Potteries and Wharford as a hack. It was sold 
by auction on 27th September. Plaintifl’s brother bought it, giving for 
it £20 5s. Saw no difference in its legs when it was sold to what they 
were when he bought it. 
Mr. Isaac Worthington, M.R.C.V.S ., said he examined the horse at 
Manchester, and found it had got side-bones, or ossification of the 
lateral cartilages of the foot. Had not the least doubt that ossification 
was in existence at the time the plaintiff bought it. 
Cross-examined.—A sudden change in the working of a horse, from 
light agricultural work on soft ground, to heavy work, such as drawing 
coals along the public streets, would be very likely to produce side- 
bones, as the complaint arose from concussion. In the horse in ques- 
tian, the side-bones did not arise from malformation of the foot. 
Mr. J.L. Hordern, M.R.C.V.S., was decidedly of opinion that the 
horse had side-bones to a considerable extent. They must have been 
in existence on 13th March, and long before. 
