G13 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Tha plaintiff stated that on the first Saturday in May the defendant 
told liiin he knew where there was a horse that would suit him—at Mr. 
Kisdon’s, Escott Farm, Stogumber, which had been used by him on the 
farm, drawing turnips, and going to the station in a light cart and for 
riding purposes—that he should go down next week, and buy the horse. 
Plaintiif told him not to buy the horse on his account, but he wanted a 
horse to ride and drive, and one that would be warranted sound. On the 
13th or 14th of May the defendant came to his house, told him he had 
bought the horse, and would send it up for him to look at—that it was 
perfectly steady to ride or drive, and perfectly sound, and that he would 
warrant it to be so. He said he had given £l7 for it, and had a written 
warranty with it. He also said, “ Tom, yCu’ll not buy a horse of a trip- 
trap fellow—the horse is everything I have said it is—sound and steady.” 
He added that the horse cost him £17, and he wanted £l for buying it. 
Plaintiff told him that if the horse was all he said it was, he would give 
him the pound. The next day, or the day after, the defendant sent his 
son with the horse. The horse was driven four or five miles; he was 
much pleased with it, and paid £18 for it. Seven or eight days after¬ 
wards he saw the horse had rubbed his tail and mane a good deal, and the 
defendant said it was all right—the horse was as he had warranted it, and 
he would send a pot of ointment to rub into the mane. _ He did not send 
it, and, on the Saturday week, the rubbing getting worse, he sent for the 
ointment, which was directed to be rubbed in twice a day. He followed 
the directions, but the horse got worse, and when turned out was like a 
mad thing, and lost almost all the mane and tail. The neck and shoulders 
were in a very bad state, and the animal was unfit for work. He told 
the defendant the state the horse was in, and that he should sell it in the 
market. His reply was that it was all nonsense, and the horse would 
come all right again. He showed the horse to a veterinary surgeon, then 
it was taken to the defendant, and the plaintiff demanded the money he 
had paid, as the horse had the sweet itch, and it was an unsoundness. 
The defendant refused to pay the money back, and he then told him he 
should sell the horse in the market, and sue him for the difference. The 
defendant refused to pay the money back at once. The horse was sold 
by Mr. Daniel for £l2 IO 5 . 
Cross-examined,—He and the defendant had always been good friends. 
He found out by the collar that corruption was issuing from the horse’s 
neck. When he brought back the horse the defendant denied that he 
had given any warranty, in fact he always denied that he had warranted 
it. When he paid the money for the horse he told the defendant he was 
afraid it had the sweet itch, and then he promised to send a bottle of lini¬ 
ment for it. The defendant replied that it was all nonsense, and the 
horse was everything he said about it. IMrs. Edwards and the defendant’s 
brother, were present when the defendant gave the warranty. 
Mrs. Edwards confirmed her husband’s testimony as to the warranty. 
Mr. Risdon, of Stogumber, bartered the horse in question to the de¬ 
fendant. Last year the horse had a humour about the mane and tail, but 
in the autumn it was right again. The defendant at that time saw the 
horse, and said he thought he could cure it or do it good, and the defen¬ 
dant’s man dressed it two or three times. It seemed to do it a little good, 
but it broke out again afterwards. The disease generally came on in 
May or June, continued for six weeks, and the hair came again in the 
winter. The disease did not prevent the horse from working. The de¬ 
fendant gave him £16 5s. worth of manure for the horse. He did not 
warrant it at all. 
Air. Charles William Gregory.^ veterinary surgeon at Taunton, examined 
