480 
VETERINARY JU RISER UDENCE. 
bone, which would finally enter the spinal marrow and destroy life. 
They were now in the month of March, and doubtless the jury would 
hear from Mr. Slack some remarks upon the circumstances of the action 
not having been brought before ; but the fact was, the plaintiff did not 
actually know at the time where Mr. White resided, and it was not till 
he had made inquiries at Bath that he was informed on that point, 
The plaintiff, after he bought the horse, sold it to another person, by 
whom it was afterwards returned. On its being sold at the Repository 
it only fetched £9 10s. The difference between the price paid and that 
realised, together with the expenses of keep, of the examination by Mr. 
Kent, Mr. Bryant’s commission, &c., made up the sum sued for. Mr. 
King called the following evidence : 
William Withers , the plaintiff, deposed to having purchased the 
horse last autumn of the defendant at the Bristol Cattle Market; defen¬ 
dant asked £20 for it, and said he would warrant it sound and good in 
harness; witness objected to the price, and they ultimately agreed for 
£17 10s.; sold the horse to a cattle-grazier named Charles Millan, and 
in a w’eek or so he sent to say that he was unsound; witness had 
warranted the horse, and he requested Millan to keep him for him, and 
turn him out until he could find out the man from whom he had bought 
him; witness gave back the money he had received, and took back the 
horse, which he afterwards had examined by Mr. Kent, and sub¬ 
sequently caused to be sold at the Repository by Mr. Bryant, who got £9 
10s. for him. 
Cross-examined—Have been a horse-dealer all my life, and my father 
was before me; have bought numbers of horses; when first I offered 
for him I might have bid £14, £15, or £16; did not examine the horse 
particularly ; was satisfied with the warranty; don’t recollect that I tried 
to sell the horse in the same market. 
Mr. Slack —Now, then, did you apply any ginger to the horse? 
Plaintiff (scratching his head)—Well, perhaps I did, and perhaps 1 
didn’t. 
Mr. Slack —Well, that is a very safe answer. Did you do so? 
Plaintiff —I don’t think that 1 did, but if I did it was no more than 
my duty to do so (a laugh). 
Cross-examination continued—I don’t know that Mr. White pointed 
to a farmer in the fair and said, “ That is the man whose horse 
• 4. • „ j > 
It IS. 
Job Cribb , horse-dealer, who was present at the deal, confirmed 
plaintiff’s statement as to the warranty. Defendant said, “ I’ll warrant 
the horse sound, and a good horse in harness.” 
Cross-examined—I did not examine the horse; I might or might not 
have bid for the horse. 
Samuel Cozens , farmer, of St. George’s, was also present when the 
horse was sold, and confirmed the warranty. 
Upon cross-examination he said he could not say whether or not a 
written warranty was asked for. 
Mr. John Kent, veterinary surgeon, deposed to the examination of 
the horse on the 1st of January. The horse was suffering from disease 
of both hocks, of both fetlock-joints, and of the poll. The bones of the 
hocks were diseased (the witness handed in some diseased bones to ex¬ 
plain the nature of the ailment). The effect of the disease of the hocks 
and fetlocks was lameness. As to the poll, there had been at sometime 
active inflammation near the bone, and effusion had taken place between 
the first two bones of the neck to the extent of ten or twelve ounces of 
fluid. The disease must have been of some months’ duration ; it might 
