VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 303 
ment of the disease, because of the presence of inflammation; after 
that it would go on slowly. 
This being the defendant’s case, Mr. Norris proceeded to sum up the 
evidence, and pointed out a case of side-bone in the Veterinarian , in 
which the judge gave a verdict for the defendant, because the plaintiff 
kept the horse a month without complaining of it. 
The Judge said, Mr. Norris might use that case in his argument, but 
he himself did not pay much attention to County Court decisions, be¬ 
cause they were not, as in the superior courts, recorded by regularly 
trained reporters. They had there not merely the authority of the 
Judge, hut that also of the reporter. 
Mr. Sicayne, in his reply, said he, too, could produce a case from the 
Veterinarian of the present mouth, in which the Judge of the Maccles¬ 
field court decided that the objection which Mr. Norris had raised 
could not be entertained, except as evidence for a diminution of 
damages. 
Mr. Norris —In that case the seller admitted at the time of sale, that 
there was some enlargement, but he said it was constitutional. It will 
not, therefore, apply to the case now before the Court. 
Mr. Sicayne said he did not rely upon it. The learned counsel then 
referred to the case of Patchell v. Tranter , and that of Kiddell v. Bur- 
nurd. , to show that retaining possession of the horse for the time men¬ 
tioned did not affect the original contract. 
The Judge —Don’t lose time: the law is quite clear. 
Mr. Sicayne then recapitulated the leading facts, and contended that 
the evidence of Messrs. South and Tremlett was not inconsistent with 
the plaintiff’s case. The probability was that the mare had incipient 
disease at the time of sale. It would have been much fairer if Mr. 
Spooner had been allowed to see her. 
His Honour , in putting the case to the jury, said there could be no 
doubt as to the amount of damage—the plaintiff was entitled to the 
amount claimed, or to nothing. From the attention they had paid to 
the case, he thought it was useless for him to go through all the evidence 
of the professional men. All he had to do was to request them to draw 
a distinction between facts and opinions. When they came to canvas 
the evidence of those gentlemen, they must see how far they were 
grounded upon fact; and if they were satisfied of the facts, they would 
not have much doubt as to the correctness of their opinions. After 
referring to those portions of the evidence which he thought had the 
most bearing on the case, his Honour said the jury were bound to take 
the law of the case from him. He was there for that purpose, and if he 
was wrong he alone was responsible, and either party could move for a 
new trial, or take the opinion of the court above. No such law was 
recognised in the superior courts as that which had been attempted to 
be laid down by the defendant. The law of the land was this—if you 
buy a horse and pay for it, and afterwards find you are taken in, and 
you have a warranty, your only alternative is to bring an action for 
breach of warranty. You cannot return the horse to the other side. 
Nor are you prejudiced by keeping it a fair and reasonable time before 
making a complaint. If you have confidence in the party of whom it is 
purchased, you may go on two or three months without taking much 
note of it. Because they have a warranty many people do not make 
such a close investigation as they otherwise would do. They would not 
take a warranty if so many precautions were to be adopted. In bringing 
an action, then, for a breach of warranty, Mr. Hussey has taken that 
course which the law of the land allows to be the usual one. Again, 
