121 - 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
CARNARVON COUNTY COURT. 
Before Octavius J. Williamson, Esq., Deputy Judge. 
ACTION TOR £17, BALANCE OF THE PRICE OF A HORSE. 
GRIFFITH GRIFFITHS V. THOMAS HUGHES. 
This court was held on Wednesday, December 10th. About the 
usual number of cases were entered, some of which were of considerable 
interest.—Mr. Powell appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. L. Adams*, Ruthin, 
for defendant. 
Mr. Fowell, in opening the case, said he believed the defence would be 
that the horse was unsound; but, according to his instructions, no 
warranty had been given. Plaintiff admitted that when asked if the 
horse was sound, he said that “ as far as he knew, it was.” 
Griffith Grffiths., plaintiff.—Was a farmer. Some time ago he sold a 
horse to Thomas Hughes for £37, who asked whether it was sound, and 
plaintiff said it was, “ for what he knew, or anything he had ever seen.” 
Hughes paid £‘20, and £17 was the balance. 
Cross-examined.—Saw a man named John Roberts some days after¬ 
wards. He did not come from Hughes to say that the horse was unsound, 
and that witness must take it back. Had no conversation with him 
about it, except when he was with Thomas Plughes. When Hughes 
bought the horse he told plaintiff he wanted it for his brother, but did 
not tell him to go to his brother for the balance. He promised to pay 
him at Llangefni fair. Got a certificate from Heyes, of Liverpool, a 
veterinary surgeon. It came to him by post. Had not been asked by 
Hughes or any one else to take the horse back because it was unsound. 
By Mr. Powell.—The certificate came to him by post. Ho did not 
know who sent it; there was no letter with it. Roberts was not present 
when he sold the horse. Was never asked to take it back. 
Mr. Adams then addressed the court. He said the defence was a 
breach of warranty on the part of plaintiff. There was an impre.^sion 
amongst horse-dealers in Wales that nothing they might say when 
selling a horse was binding—that a warranty was only obligatory when 
written; but he would be able to prove that assurances of the good, con¬ 
dition of a horse were binding, whether written or verbal. \Vhat this 
man admitted he had said was a warranty, because he ought to have 
known that the horse was unsound; but he (Mr. Adams) could show 
that there was no qualification in what he told defendant; it was a 
positive declaration that the horse was sound:—“ I warrant that the 
horse is sound.” Luckily this point could be corroborated by a man of 
the name of Roberts, whom Griffiths told he had given his word to 
Hughes that the horse was sound. After Hughes had purchased the 
horse he sold it to a person in Liverpool; but on being examined by 
Mr. Heyes, a veterinary surgeon, it was pronounced unsound and re¬ 
turned to him. It was subsequently sold, and, after paying for its keep, 
Hughes received £22 12s. Qcl. After deducting various expenses, they 
calculated that £l 10s, only was due to plaintiff, which had been paid 
into court. Mr. Adams first called defendant. 
