62 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
EXETER DISTRICT COUNTY COURT. 
Before Judge Tyrrell. 
ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY RESPECTING THE BUTTER-YIELDING 
PROPERTIES OF A COW. 
PERRAM V. WHITE. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a cattle dealer, residing 
at Marsh Barton, Alphington, to recover£I2 damages sustained by him 
on the exchange of a waggon and cow, through the misrepresentation 
of the defendant concerning the said cow.—Mr. Floud appeared for the 
plaintiff, and Mr. Fryer for the defendant. 
The plea set up by the plaintiff was that the defendant, a cattle 
dealer, of Bow, warranted at the time the exchange took place that the 
cow would yield a pound and a quarter of butter diem. The first time 
the cow was milked she only gave three pints, and at no time did she 
ever yield more than a quart of milk. lie gave £12 for the waggon, 
which he considered a bargain: indeed, he would not have sold it for 
less than £14. 
Mr. Tozer^ farrier, of St. Thomas, examined the cow, and found it 
was unsound, the lungs being perfectly rotten, 
Mr. Fryer denied that a warranty had ever been given ; in fact, such 
a thing could not have been further from his client’s thoughts. He 
then told his Honour that the plaintiff purchased this cow for the pur¬ 
pose of taking it to the Exeter market, and placing a calf by her side, 
to sell them both together, thus to mislead the purchaser, by making 
him believe that he was buying a calf which belonged to the cow ; and 
if a man would do that, he asked his Honour whether he could place 
reliance upon any statement he might make? 
. The defendant, on being called, said he actually refused to warrant 
the cow as a sound one. When he bought the cow she was not war¬ 
ranted. The plaintiff never asked him if the cow was a sound one; 
if he had, he should have given him a truthful answer. The waggon 
he received in exchange for the cow was only worth about £5. 
Defendant’s wife, on being called, said she told the plaintiff the cow 
was a very good “creamer,” but not a good “milker.” The cow used 
to produce a pound and a quarter of butter. 
His Honour said he had no doubt whatever the plaintiff was entitled 
to recover. As to the evidence of the cow, in the state in which it was, 
giving a pound and a quarter of butter or cream a day, he utterly 
disbelieved it. He should, therefore, give judgment for plaintiff for 
£ 10 . 
Mr. Fryer asked his Honour to order the waggon to be given back 
in lieu (»f the money, but his Honour refused to make such an order. 
On the application of Mr. Floud, the plaintiff was allowed £3 for 
expenses. 
Mr Fryer —I don’t know, your Honour, whether, in giving a judgment 
for £10, you have taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff 
subsequently sold the cow for 50^. 
His Honour .—I have taken everything into consideration. 
