VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
481 
have been of two or three years. Had the horse met with violence to 
the neck, renewed inflammation, or even a bad cold, the disease of the 
poll would have become active, and death might have ensued. 
Cross-examined—I often appear in this box, and shall not object to 
the pleasure of meeting you at any time (laughter); am well known as 
a veterinary surgeon, and as well known in London as here; the three 
bones of the horse’s hocks had grown together; the tendency with such 
a disease would be to lameness; an old-standing horse-dealer might be 
deceived, especially if the horse was put under the whip or under ginger ; 
he might be deceived even when the horse was walking; such an 
effusion as I found in the poll of the horse could not have been pro¬ 
duced within a few weeks. 
Mr. Frank Bryant proved the sale of the horse for £9 10s. at the 
repository. 
Cross-examined—It was sold as a horse in dispute, not as being un¬ 
sound ; it was trotted up and down, but I did not notice whether it was 
lame ; if I had 1 should not have mentioned it there, as it was my business 
to get the most I could for it. 
Mr. Slack , before proceeding to address the Court on the general facts, 
called attention to the case of Harwell v. Coare> 1 Taunton, 566, in which 
it was held that where, on a breach of warranty, a horse was not re¬ 
turned or tendered to the vendor, the measure of damages must be the 
difference between the price given and the sum realised, and nothing 
could be recovered for the keep. The reason of the ruling was shortly 
given by one of the judges thus, “ If a man buys a horse it is his own, 
and if it is his own he must keep it.” 
Hit Honour said the judgment was no doubt intended to force 
persons to tender the horse, as the vendor would then have an oppor¬ 
tunity of seeing it, and of determining what he would do with it. 
Mr. King said he could not resist the authority of the case cited, 
and must of course forego the £6 15s. claimed for keep. He was not 
consulted in the matter until yesterday, or he should have advised 
against that sum being mentioned in the bill of particulars. 
Mr. Slack ably addressed the jury for the defence, contending that 
the action was a horse-dealer’s manoeuvre, and expressing his belief 
that when they had heard all the facts they would have no difficulty in 
returning a verdict for the defendant. He asked the jury whether they 
would believe the evidence as to the warranty, and whether they did 
not think that if one had been required and given, it would have been 
in writing. As for the alleged unsoundness, he thought the evidence any¬ 
thing but satisfactory. Mr. Kent, who, somehow or other, was in every 
horse cause, pulled from his pocket the old bones of one of the patients 
which, notwithstanding his very scientific treatment, had died under his 
hands, and they were to assume, because he chose boldly to aver it, that 
the bones of the horse in question had grown together. That, he thought, 
was carrying matters too far. The learned advocate said he should 
show that the horse, which belonged to Mr. Pinchin, a highly-respect- 
able farmer and brewer at Box, had always been considered sound, 
and was only parted with as being too light to carry a man of Mr. 
Pinchin’s weight over a heavy farm. He should prove that no warranty 
was given, that the plaintiff, who was an experienced dealer, bought the 
horse on view, and he had no sooner paid for him than, horse-dealer 
like, he gingered him and tried to sell him in the same market. He 
should also show that Mr. White acted merely as agent to Mr. Pinchin, 
and that he so stated to Mr. Withers, and pointed out Mr. Pinchin to 
him. Mr. Slack submitted to hi§ Honour, upon the authority of cases, 
xxxii. 63 
