VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
483 
warranty, the plaintiff paid the defendant the sum of £22; hut the 
defendant deceived the plaintiff, for that the said horse was not sound, 
therefore, the plaintiff tendered back the said horse to the defendant, 
who refused to receive the same, or pay back the purchase-money, and 
the plaintiff hath also sustained divers expenses, in consequence of the 
premises; and for money had and received, on an account stated.”—Mr. 
Slack appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. W. Saunders, barrister, of 
the Western Circuit, instructed by Mr. E. M. Harris, for the defendant. 
Mr. Slack , in stating - the case to the Court, said that the plaintiff was 
a gentleman who had several horses, and about the 23d April he pur¬ 
chased the animal in question of the defendant. He was very particular 
to have the horse warranted, and drew up the warranty himself, stipu¬ 
lating that it should be signed by the defendant, otherwise he would 
have nothing to do with the transaction, not being much of a judge of 
horses himself, and the defendant admitting that he had only recently 
had it from Ireland, and had had but few opportunities of testing its 
capabilities. The defendant accordingly signed the warranty, in which 
he affirmed that the horse was free from vice, and quiet to ride or drive 
in harness. When his Honour heard that within about twenty-one 
days after the sale it became necessary, under the advice of experienced 
veterinary surgeons, that the animal should be shot, he would not be 
surprised when he (Mr Slack) said, that instead of being sound the 
animal was in a very unsound state, quite different from the character 
the warranty led them to expect. The question of course was, whether 
the animal became diseased afterwards, or whether unsoundness existed 
at the lime of sale. In the present instance the unsound ness assumed 
a complicated form. The horse at first went off its food ; then divers 
swellings made their appearance, which turned into ulcers. The horse 
was also afflicted with farcy, and from the appearance of this disease it 
was quite palpable to the veterinary surgeons that its seeds had existed 
some considerable time, at all events before the sale was effected. His 
Honour would hear that this farcy was a modified form of that horrible 
disease the glanders. In its advanced stages this disease was incurable ; 
but on its first appearance the attempts to cure it might be successful. 
When this glaring unsoundness appeared, Mr. Nunes had advice, and 
under that advice the horse was offered back to the plaintiff, who refused 
to take it. Then it became the duty of the plaintiff either, in the 
ordinary way, to sell the horse in the market, in order to show in an 
action for breach of warranty what loss he had sustained, or have the 
animal shot. Acting under his (Mr. Slack’s) advice, an auctioneer was 
instructed to sell the animal. Mr. Eve was the person selected, a 
very respectable and talented man, who during the greater part of his 
life had been a chemist and druggist, devoting much of his time to the 
veterinary art. Probably he was as good an authority as the city of 
Bath possessed, as to the diseases which horses were subject to. 
Mr. Eve looked the animal over, and observing the state it was in, 
actually refused to sell it, giving an undoubted opinion that the animal 
was in that state of farcy that to sell it would be an imposition on the 
public, and would be attended with dangerous consequences. Then 
came the question—what was to be done with it? The veterinary surgeons 
were of opinion that it was unsafe, and that it ought to be shot. Thinking 
that if the animal was worth anything at all the defendant ought to 
have an opportunity of realising it, they gave him notice in writing that 
unless it was taken away by the following morning at 10 o’clock, it 
would be shot. The defendant declined to do so, and the animal was 
shot. Upon its being examined by several persons, who would be 
