548 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
day to Mr. Field’s, the veterinary surgeon, who gave a certificate that 
lie was lame in both fore legs, and the plaintiff sent him back to the 
yard. Mr. Tattersall, however, refused to receive him, on the ground 
that there had been no warranty of soundness, and that the horse really 
was what he had been represented to be—“ a clever hack and hunter.” 
The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, admitted that he saw the horse 
walked and trotted in Messrs. Tattersall’s yard, and he did not observe 
any appearance of lameness about him. 
Mr. W. Field , veterinary surgeon, deposed that the horse in ques¬ 
tion was brought to him for examination on the 13th of May. He 
was lame in both his fore legs, the near one being the worst. In his 
opinion the lameness was caused by a disease of the feet, called the 
navicular disease. A horse in such a condition was certainly not 
properly described as “a clever hack.” He would not be safe to 
ride. 
Cross-examined—Witness knew nothing of the science of horse 
dealing, and could not say how horse dealers would understand the ex¬ 
pression “ a clever hack.” In his opinion a horse could not be consi¬ 
dered “clever” who was not perfectly sound in sight, wind, and limb. 
It was very rare to find a horse without some defects. A horse might 
be a very good racehorse and win many races and yet be very lame, 
but he should not consider such a horse would be properly described as 
a “ clever” racehorse. He believed Phosphorus won the Derby when 
he was lame. 
Mr. G. Varnell , assistant-professor at the Royal Veterinary College, con¬ 
curred in the opinion of Mr. Field as to the lameness of the horse, and also 
stated that it must have existed two or three months. He was not aware 
what interpretation would be put upon the term “ clever hack” among 
horse-dealers, but he should certainly say that a horse was more likely 
to be “ clever” when he was sound than when he was unsound. 
Cross-examined—A horse undoubtedly might be a “ clever” horse 
when he was not perfectly sound. A horse suffering from navicular 
disease might be used, and he might be “clever,” butlie would be 
“cleverer” without it. 
Mr. Sewell, who was in the habit of shoeing the plaintiff’s horses, 
proved that he examined the horse when he was brought home, 
and he found that he was lame in both fore legs. He advised Mr. 
Cleoburv not to ride him any more, and told him if he did, he would 
be very likely to fall with him and break his neck. 
Mr. Hawkins, at the close of the case for the plaintiff, submitted that 
there was nothing to go to the jury, as there was no evidence of any 
contract on the part of the defendants to return the money if the horse 
was unsound. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn said he would reserve the point. He thought 
there was evidence of a contract; but if he was wrong the defendants 
would have leave to move for a nonsuit, if such a course should become 
necessary. 
Mr. Hutchins then addressed the jury for the defendants, and he said 
he could not help expressing his surprise that his learned friend should 
have charged them with having wil ully given a false description of this 
horse in their catalogue. Every one who knew the manner in which 
the business of Messrs. Tattersall had been conducted, and the high 
character for honour and integrity they possessed in the estimation of 
the public, must know that there was not the slightest foundation for 
such an accusation. The fact was that thousands of horses passed 
through their hands every year, but they knew nothing abuut them, 
