358 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
• BRISTOL NISI PRIUS ASSIZE. 
(Before Mr. Baron Watson). 
Saturday, April 2d. 
BUTSON V BADCOCK. 
Mr. Collier , Q. C. and Mr. Stone, instructed by Mr. Clifton, were for 
the plaintiffs. Air. M. Smith. Q. C., and Mr. King don, instructed by 
Messrs. Cleave and Co., for the defence. 
Air. Stone opened the pleadings. Charles Butson was the plaintiff and 
John Badcock the defendant. The action was for breach of warranty 
of a horse ; for money had and received and upon an account stated, 
The defendant denied the breach and denied the warranty. 
Mr. Collier stated the case to the jury. This, as they had heard, 
was a horse cause ; the plaintiff, Mr. Butson, was a liverv-stable keeper 
of Clifton, in a large way of business, and a most respectable man. 
The defendant, Mr. Badcock, was a wine merchant at Crediton, and 
rather a sporting sort of gentleman, and both the parties, therefore, 
were well acquainted with horses. They had been long well-ac¬ 
quainted with each other and had had dealings together. In December 
last Mr. Badcock had a mare he wanted to sell and Mr. Butson was 
inclined to buy her. He wanted her as a saddle-horse, for the purpose 
of letting out to gentlemen to ride. At first Mr. Badcock thought he 
should not be able to let the plaintiff have the mare, as there was another 
gentlemen about her, but on thelbth of December he wrote to Butson, to 
say he had just received a note from the gentlemen in question that he 
should not want the horse. If Butson liked to have her, her price 
was £40, and he added she would be worth £80 when subdued to easy 
shoeing. Mr. Butson called on the defendant about the mare. Mr. Bad¬ 
cock admitted that she had certain failings; she was obliged to be thrown 
in order to be shod, and she would not go in harness. He was asked 
this question by Mr. Butson very particularly, whether the mare was 
sound and quiet to ride ? Mr. Badcock said she was as sound “ as a 
hell,” and perfectly quiet to ride, and thereupon a deal was come to. 
Mr. Butson was to pay £-10 for the mare in this way: he gave a chestnut 
horse which he warranted sound, of the value of £20, and he was to 
pay the rest in money. In consequence of a letter from the defendant, 
Mr. Butson went to Exeter and saw the mare. He had known Mr. 
Badcock so long, and had such confidence in him, that he had not 
troubled to see the mare before. He now looked at the mare. She 
had not been shod for some time, and her hoofs were very much grown 
out, so that the plaintiff could not examine them very well. She 
was a good-looking mare, however, and Mr. Butson thought she would 
suit him very well. She appeared to be sound at that time, and he 
took her home. The mare turned out to be unsound, and in several 
ways. The first thing was that when her hoofs were scraped, it was 
found that she had corns of long standing, and it was necessary to 
blister them from time to time, and when she was ridden much she 
went lame occasionally. It was plain that xMr. Badcock knew of the 
corns, and that was the reason why the mare’s hoofs had been let 
