VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
359 
grow to such an extent. However, Mr. Butson would not have wished 
to have withdrawn from his bargain on account of the corns only, 
though he wrote to Mr. Badcock to complain about them. But things 
went on from bad to worse. The mare was not sound so far as corns 
were concerned, yet if that had been her only fault the jury would 
never have heard of this action. But there were one or two other 
objections to the mare, and one was that no one could ride her, though 
Mr. Badcock had said she was so quiet that he rode her hunting with a 
snaffle bit only. Mr. Butson lent her out once or twice to Captain 
Maude, a gentleman who was a cross-country rider, and indeed steeple¬ 
chase man, and she carried him in an involuntary steeple-chase through 
the streets of Bristol, and almost broke his neck. Fortunately, how¬ 
ever, for the people of Clifton, the mare died shortly afterwards, the 
immediate cause of her death being inflammation of the lungs. Upon 
her being opened by a veterinary surgeon, it was discovered that she 
laboured under chronic disease of the lungs, the structure of one being 
entirely altered; and the evidence of the surgeons would show that 
the disease must have existed for months, and that the mare was in a 
consumption when she was sold. The learned counsel concluded by 
calling on the jury to give the plaintiff such damages as the loss he had 
sustained would entitle him to. 
Mr. Butson, the plaintiff, deposed that he formerly kept the inn at 
Highbridge, and knew the defendant, whom he had dealt with for wines 
and spirits ; on the 7th December defendant was at his yard at Clifton ; 
he said he had a mare which would just suit him, but he could not sell, 
as he had a person down in the country about her; witness said he did 
not care particularly about buying, but he had a chestnut horse he had 
taken in exchange which he wished to dispose of; they looked over 
the stables, but came to no deal; defendant said, “ This mare, were 
she subdued to shoeing—for we are always obliged to cast her for 
shoeing—would be worth any money.” On the 10th December witness 
received a letter from the defendant, dated the Swan Inn, Bridge-street, 
stating that the person who had been about his horse did not intend to 
take her, that the lowest price would be £40, and that were she subdued 
to shoeing she would be worth £80; witness went and saw defendant 
about her, and told him that he did not want her, as he had a chestnut 
horse; told defendant that the horse was had from the repository, and 
was booked at 20 guineas, and warranted sound, and that he would 
warrant him sound, and said, “ Is yours sound?” He replied “Yes, as 
sound as a bell,'’ and he further said that she was very quiet to ride, 
and had been ridden hunting by him with a snaffle bit ; they agreed for 
the purchase of the mare, which plaintiff was to give the horse and 
£20 for. When they parted it was on the understanding that defendant 
was to send the mare to Bristol by rail, but on the 12th of December 
he (plaintiff) received a letter from him, saying, that, as the mare was 
very valuable, he thought, upon reconsideration, that he had better 
meet him at Exeter and see her, and if he liked her he could take her 
back with him by the third-class train; on the 13th, witness went to 
Eexter and saw the mare; she was in a rough state, as if she had been 
turned out, and her feet were very long; did not have her examined 
by a farrier, as he had confidence in Mr. Badcock ; he (plaintiff) owed 
Mr. Badcock, at the time of the deal, £11 10s. for wine, and it was 
agreed that he should take the mare at £40, giving his own horse, 
valued at £20, and his acceptance for the balance and the wine—£31 10s. 
On the Wednesday following the receipt of the horse at his stables, 
witness had the mare shod by Braybrook ; his attention was then called 
