550 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
in horses, and he had seen a good many horse transactions, and this 
was the first time he had ever heard it attempted to be made out that 
“cleverness” was in any way connected with soundness. 
Mr. F. J. Pearse deposed that he resided near Chippenham, and he 
sent the horse in question to Messrs. Tattersall’s for sale. He pur¬ 
chased him at the Warwick spring-steeplechase, and gave sixty guineas 
for him, and he used him as a cover hack, and also with hounds, down 
to the time he sold him. He rode him three times with hounds, 
and upon one occasion had a particularly good run. Witness was sorry 
to say he weighed sixteen stone. (A laugh.) He therefore required a 
good horse to carry him, and he considered this horse carried him re¬ 
markably well. He was not lame, and did not show any symptoms of 
lameness when he sent him to Messrs. Tattersall, and two days before 
he went away, witness rode him thirty-seven miles on the turnpike road, 
and was never carried better. He generally made a draught of his 
horses at the end of the season, and the reason this horse was sold was 
that he considered he was not strong enough to carry him, and, as he 
had several stronger horses, this one was draughted off. The horse 
had a high character when he bought him. 
Mr. Picard, stud-groom to a gentleman named Holford, residing near 
Mr. Pearse, stated that he rode the horse while he was in that gentle¬ 
man’s possession, both on the road and over some fences, and he carried 
him very well indeed. If his master had wanted such a horse he should 
have had no hesitation in advising him to buy him, and he would have 
given a hundred guineas for him. 
Cross-examined—There was nothing at all the matter with the horse. 
Witness had had very great experience with horses, and he knew that it 
frequently happened that the lamer a horse was the more clever he 
was. (A laugh.) 
Mr. Hawkins, in summing up the defendant’s case, said the only 
point for the jury was whether or not this horse deserved the description 
of a “ clever” horse, and that they had nothing whatever to do with his 
soundness or unsoundness, and he submitted that it had been abun- 
dantlv made out that the horse was a clever horse notwithstanding his 
lameness, and the defendants were consequently entitled to a verdict. 
Serjeant Parry made a very able reply upon the whole case, and he 
said it appeared to him that the simple question was whether a horse 
that was proved to stumble and to be incurably lame could be used with 
any comfort or safety, and whether such an animal could be fairly de¬ 
scribed as a “clever” hack. 
Mr. Justice Blackburn , in summing up, said he need not trouble the 
jury with the points of law that were reserved, and the main question 
for them to consider was whether the horse answered the description 
given of him in the catalogue. He should certainly rule that in law 
the description did not amount to a warranty of soundness, but at the 
same time that it did amount to a warranty that the horse was at all 
events safe and fit for the purposes of a riding hack. Looking at the 
whole of the evidence, therefore, it would be for them to say whether 
at the time the horse was sold he was fairly entitled to the description 
of a clever hack. 
The jury, after a short deliberation, said they were of opinion that 
the plaintiff, from the description of the animal, had a right to expect 
something different from the animal he received. 
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff, but judgment was stayed, 
the learned Judge giving the defendants leave to move to enter a nonsuit, 
in the event of the Court being of opinion that he was wrong, in law, 
in his ruling with regard to the contract. 
