482 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
that under such circumstances Mr. White could no more he held liable 
than the mere servant who trotted the horse out. He called 
Mr. White, the defendant, who deposed that he was employed by Mr. 
Pinchin to sell the horse in question, and attended the Bristol market 
for that purpose; had no interest in the horse himself; asked £20 for 
him; told the plaintiff that the horse was sold because he was not of 
sufficient weight to carry a gentleman about a hilly farm, and added 
that he had seen him at work ; plaintiff said he had been looking him 
over, and offered £15 for him; witness said he might as well 
have offered him 15s., and moved away; Withers afterwards came to 
him again, and followed him up until tiiey finally dealt. The witness 
denied having given any warranty, and said plaintiff tried the horse 
himself; he also told plaintiff that he was only selling the horse for Mr. 
Pinchin, whom he pointed out to him in the market, and who came up 
to them ; the agreement for the sale of the horse was made before 
they entered the house. 
William Rogers , servant to the last witness, deposed to having been 
present at the deal, which he fixed as having taken place in the house. 
Nothing was said about a warranty before the money was paid ; after¬ 
wards Mr. White did say the horse was all right. 
Mr. Pinchin, farmer and brewer, of Box, proved that he was the owner 
of the horse in question, which he had had from October, 1857 ; the 
horse worked about very well, but was not strong enough for him ; 
he was never lame, and he was not aware that his hock was grown to¬ 
gether, or that he had a lot of fluid in his poll; Mr. White sold the 
horse as witness’s agent ; heard White say to Mr. Withers, “ Here is 
the gentleman that belongs to the horse.” 
Cross-examined—I believe that the horse was perfectly sound. 
Mr. King —And I dare say believe so now? 
Mr. Pinchin —Well, I do. 
Mr. King then replied on the defendant’s case, contending that it 
had failed to overturn that of the plaintiff. He submitted as to the 
warranty that the jury could not disbelieve the testimony of a perfectly 
disinterested witness like Mr. Cozens, and argued that, believing as Mr. 
Pinchin and Mr. White admitted they did, that the horse was thoroughly 
sound, there was no reason why they'should not have warranted it. 
The learned Judge summed up the evidence with great care, and the 
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £9 11s., the amount sued 
for, less the charge for keep. 
BATH COUNTY COURT.-Friday, May 27. 
(Before C. F. D. Caillard, Esq., Judge .) 
BENJAMIN* PHINEAS NUNES V. WM. POWELL. 
The plaintiff is a gentleman residing on Sion Hill, and the defendant 
a fly-owner of this city. The action was brought to recover £25, for 
“damages sustained by the plaintiff in this, that is to say, for that on or 
about the 23d day of April, 1859, the defendant sold to the plaintiff for 
the price of £22, a chestnut horse, and warranted the same sound, free 
from vice, and quiet to ride or drive in harness, and relying on the said 
