VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
363 
fore be confined to the warranty; and lie thought that by and by, when 
they came to hear all the facts of the case, and to weigh the evidence of 
Mr. Badcock, whom he should call before them, against that of the 
plaintiff, they would have no difficulty in determining on which side the 
truth lay. He would ask them whether it was conceivable that Mr. 
Butson, if the defendant had given him a warranty, would have acted 
as he did. Letter after letter did the plaintiff write to the defendant, 
and yet not one word did be say about a warranty, or about the tre¬ 
mendous difficulty experienced in riding the mare. If there had been a 
warranty, would not his conduct have been very different? would he not, 
so soon as the corns and the lameness were discovered, have written 
something in this way : ‘'I hereby give you notice that the mare which 
you warranted to me proves to be unsound and unquiet to ride?” The 
real solution of the case was that Butson, being a man of experience, 
bought the mare on his own judgment. It was very well known that 
men who were judges of horses frequently preferred buying without 
warranties, because they knew that a warranty always sent up the price, 
whilst if they really understood their business their judgment in the main 
would prove right. The learned counsel then read the correspondence 
between the parties, and examined and criticised the evidence, contending 
that the whole course of the transaction showed clearly that there could 
not have been a warranty. Mr. Badcock would distinctly tell them, on 
his oath, that he positively refused to give a warranty. Mr. Badcock 
was a very respectable man; he was a wine-mercliant in a large way of 
business, and he had been in the habit of supplying the plaintiff with 
goods. Did the jury think it likely that the defendant would have 
irritated a man who was his customer by giving him a warranty which 
he knew he could not keep? Mr. Badcock. had bought the mare without 
a warranty, and he refused to give a warranty himself; he invited the 
plaintiff to come and see and examine the mare, and referred him to the 
breeder for any information he might want. The plaintiff did see the 
mare and examine her; he bought her on his own judgment as a specu¬ 
lation, and now, the mare having died, it might be through some indis¬ 
cretion on his part, some want of care in her management, he turned 
round upon the defendant and said—“ I shall look to you ; you gave me 
a warranty, and on you I shall throw the loss.” He (the learned counsel) 
submitted that that was a course of dealing which the jury would not 
sanction, and that after they had heard all the facts they would have no 
difficulty in returning a verdict for the defendant. 
At this point, it being near seven o’clock, the court adjourned. 
Monday, April 4th. 
The learned Judge sat at half past nine o’clock, 
Butson v. Badcock. 
The trial of this cause was resumed, and the following evidence was 
called for the defence : 
John Badcock deposed—I am the defendant, and carry on business as 
a wine and spirit merchant at Crediton ; have occasionally had dealings 
with the plaintiff, who formerly lived at Highbridge; about the 8th or 
9th of December last, 1 called upon him at Bristol respecting a small 
account he owed me; he invited me to go into his stables, and as 1 was 
looking over his stables, I told him I had a bay mare that I thought 
would suit him, but 1 could not offer her to him, as she was under offer 
