VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
485 
would not have administered medicines to it, nor would I have allowed 
my men to do it, having seen the danger of it, more particularly of late 
years. 
Mr. H. Eve proved being applied to by Mr. Slack to sell the horse on 
the 10th of May. On the 11th he went and looked at the horse in an 
empty coach-house belonging to Mr. Weller; the animal was in a very 
emaciated state, evidently suffering from disease. He at once resolved 
not to sell the animal, because he knew it was suffering from farcy, and 
that it ought not to be kept alive. He knew from his experience that 
the horse must have had the disease in an incipient state for not less 
than three weeks. He had since seen the lungs of the horse, and their 
appearance confirmed his former opinion ; tubercular disease sometimes 
developed itself in one part of the lungs and not another; in this 
instance the disease of farcy was incurable. 
Mr. Broad , a veterinary surgeon, practising in London, deposed that 
he had examined the lungs in question, and found them tuberculated. 
He had a very large practice, and from what he had heard he thought 
the horse ought to have been shot; he was veterinary surgeon to the 
London Omnibus Company, from which he derived large practice; 
there could be no doubt that the horse had farcy, and he fully agreed 
with the treatment it had received. 
Mr. Barrell , veterinary surgeon, of Keynsham, gave corroborative 
testimony; and Mr. Sargent, of Holloway, who shot the horse, and his 
son, were likewise called, after which 
Mr. Saunders submitted the case for the defence, stating that the 
defendant bought the horse at Chippenham, of a Mr. Mackey, a horse- 
dealer. He received no warranty with it. Within two days after 
Mr. Weller told him that the plaintiff required such a horse, and on the 
latter seeing it he offered to purchase it without a trial, though the 
defendant wished him to take it on trial for a week. The plaintiff, 
however, expressed himself quite satisfied with the account he had 
received of the horse from Mr. Weller. The horse was then sold, and 
the plaintiff subsequently came to defendant’s house on the same day, 
and brought the warranty written out, and combining with it a receipt 
for the money. On the face of the evidence, it would seem that there 
was a warranty given, but the circumstances under which that document 
was obtained would show that it was not a warranty. Immediately on 
its being read over, defendant objected to sign it, on the ground that he 
would not warrant the horse, not having received a warranty with it. 
It was then understood that the defendant should sign the paper merely 
as a receipt, and accordingly the receipt was signed. In fact, the 
defendant did not want to sell the horse. The plaintiff came to him ; 
he did not seek the plaintiff. He (Mr. Saunders) should further be 
able to show that, the horse was not labouring from farcy, and that the 
disease spoken of was merely an eruption produced by stuffing the 
animal, which was previously very poor. Moreover, he should be able 
to show that those diseased appearances did not necessarily owe their 
origin to any period anterior to the time the horse was sold, and that 
they might have been easily cured. He thought, therefore, his Honour, 
when he had heard the evidence, would come to the conclusion, that 
the claim set up on the part of the plaintiff was not founded in 
justice. 
The Defendant corroborated the statement of Mr. Saunders, adding, 
that he was so convinced that the animal was not suffering from farcy, 
but only from a slight eruption, that the day before it was shot he told 
Sargent he would rather return all the money, than that the animal 
