VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
549 
and they were described in the catalogues of the sales according to the 
representations of the owners, and Messrs Tattersall were not in any 
way responsible for those representations. With regard to the horse in 
question, he was sent up from the country with the description of “a 
clever hack and hunter/’ and he believed he should be able to show 
that he deserved that description, and as to his being lame that had 
nothing to do with the matter, because everybody knew that a horse 
might be a very good horse across country, or on a country road, who 
would stumble and go lame on the London stones or on a hard road. 
The plaintiff had every opportunity of examining the horse before he 
purchased him, and he admitted that at that time he saw no appearance 
of lameness, and he supposed the fact was, that when he got him home 
he found the horse did not suit him, or he had changed his mind, and 
he consequently got a certificate of unsoundness from Mr. Field, and 
upon that ground sought to compel Mr. Tattersall to take the horseback 
and return him his money. The learned counsel then proceeded to 
argue that the description of a “ clever hack” had nothing whatever to 
do with soundness, and he said it was notorious that a great many 
horses were very clever and useful animals, and worth large sums of 
money, who were very far from what would be considered sound or 
without blemish. 
Mr. Edmund Tattersall, one of the defendants, was then examined. 
He stated that he had conducted the business personally for eight 
years, and sold a great number of horses every year. The horse in 
question was sent up from the country by a gentleman named Pearse, 
and he was sold in the usual way according to his description, and wit¬ 
ness knew nothing at all about him. In witness’s experience a great 
many valuable hunters were lame, and the more clever they w 7 ere the 
more likely they w 7 ere to become lame, as they were more used. 
Cross-examined—Witness had no idea that this horse was lame, and 
he did not believe that he was lame when he sold him. 
Mr. J. R. Cox , veterinary surgeon, of Mount-street, Grosvenor-square, 
stated that he saw the horse at Mr. Cleobury’s stables on Saturday last. 
He was walked and trotted, and witness observed that he was slightly 
lame in both fore legs, but the lameness was of such a character as 
could only be detected by a professional man or one a good deal accus¬ 
tomed to horses. The horse appeared very quiet, and went very well 
over some uneven ground, and he only stumbled once, which was 
owing to his being fresh and going too fast for the groom. He 
stumbled upon some rising ground, but recovered himself very quickly. 
There was nothing the matter with his feet, except that they were narrow, 
and the animal appeared to him to possess all the appearance of a good 
hack; there was nothing at all about him likely to render him unsafe, 
and witness would have no hesitation in using him as a hack. In wit¬ 
ness’s opinion the horse was not suffering from navicular disease. He 
bad had a great deal of experience in matters connected with horses, 
and he always understood the term “ clever” to apply to the training 
and education of a horse, and also to his disposition, and he never un¬ 
derstood the term to have any reference to soundness. It was a very 
common thing for horses which were known as clever hacks or hunters 
to be unsound. 
Cross-examined—In witness’s opinion the lameness in this case was 
occasioned by splints, and not by navicular disease. He had no hesita¬ 
tion in saying that a horse might be fairly described as “ clever,’’ not¬ 
withstanding lie was lame. 
Re-examined— Witness’s father and brother were extensive dealers 
72 
XXXII. 
