VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
119 
Air. Knight, auctioneer, said the horse was sold, after being duly ad¬ 
vertised in the ‘ Macclesfield Courier.’ There was a great number of 
people at the sale, and competition ran keenly from £10 to £20 5s., at 
which sum it was knocked down to the plaintiff’s brother. 
This was the plaintiff’s case. 
Mr. Cooper said, upon the evidence of the plaintiff himself, who ad¬ 
mitted that there was no difference in the horse’s legs at the time he 
bought it and when he sold it, he should submit that there was no case 
to answer; inasmuch, as if side-bones were in existence on the 13th of 
March, it was a patent defect to which the warranty did not extend ; 
and also that the plaintiff had waived the warranty by the length of 
time he had the horse in his possession—six months. 
His Honour said, a patent defect which did not extend to a warranty 
must be something like a man warranting a horse to be sound and per¬ 
fect when it had only three legs, or was without a tail. It had been 
decided that the gutta serena in a horse’s eyes was included in a war¬ 
ranty, because the defect was not palpable; but if the eye affected 
was out altogether, or the socket nearly empty, then it would be 
a patent defect. Side-bones were pretty much of the same de¬ 
scription. With respect to the waiver of the warranty, that was solely 
a question for the jury. 
Mr. Cooper then forcibly addressed the jury for the defence, contend¬ 
ing that, if it was true that the horse had got side-bones, they had been 
brought on solely by the manner in which the plaintiff had worked the 
animal. He bought a horse for one purpose, and used it for another ; 
therefore he ought to bear the consequence. If every man who bought a 
horse was to keep it and use it as he liked for six months, and then come 
into a court of justice to make the seller take it back again or pay the 
difference if a sale was effected, there would be no end to such unjust 
claims. But he should bring forward evidence from as respectable a 
veterinary surgeon as either Mr. Worthington or Mr. Hordern, who 
would state positively that the horse could not have been affected with 
side-bones when the plaintiff bought it, and that at the time of the pur¬ 
chase it was as sound as ever it was, the plaintiff having a short time 
previously refused to take £27 10s. for it—this circumstance alone 
showed the value of the horse, and its condition in the opinion of men 
well able to judge. 
Mr. Frederick Bullock said he was a veterinary surgeon. Examined 
the horse on the 23d of June. It had a peculiar formation of the 
foot, in the same way as its dam. It was perfectly sound then, and is 
yet. There was no existence of side bones in the animal at all—it was 
the natural formation of the foot. 
Cross-examined.—Would swear that the horse had not got side-bones 
at all. Knew what side-bones were. Never said to plaintiff whilst ex¬ 
amining the horse, “ Well, this will be a lesson for me for life; there 
are side-bones in the animal’s foot, but I never knew they were con¬ 
sidered unsound.” Would swear he never said so. 
John Hill, farm servant, knew the horse well, and never considered 
anything was the matter with it. 
Frederick Dale offered the plaintiff £27 10s. for the horse; he wanted 
more. Had examined the horse, and was satisfied nothing was amiss 
with it. Would give £27 10s. for it yet. 
— Jackson , a blacksmith, had shod the horse often, and never ob¬ 
served anything the matter with its feet. 
Mr. Ralph Bullock, yeoman, Macclesfield Forest, said the plaintiff 
was his nephew. It was partly on witness’s recommendation, after 
