251 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—NOTTINGHAM, March 11th. 
CHAPMAN V. MALTBY. 
“WINDSUCKING.” 
This was a somewhat curious horse cause. The first count of the 
declaration was for deceitfully and fraudulently representing that a 
certain mare had no disease which could not be discovered on inspection 
by a veterinary surgeon. The second count was for breach of warranty 
to the same effect. 
Mr. Serjeant O’Brien and Mr. Manley Smith were for the plaintiff*; 
Mr. Serjeant Hayes, Mr. Merewether, and Mr. Yeatman for the 
defendant. 
The plaintiff is a well-known horse-dealer of Cheltenham, and the 
defendant a farmer and miller, living at Flintham. The account given 
by the plaintiff and his witnesses was, that the plaintiff and an agent 
went to the house of tlie defendant in April of last year, and visited the 
mare in her stable. The mare’s head was then tied close to the rack, 
the reason, according to the plaintiff, being that it should not be dis¬ 
covered that she was a crib-biter; while the reason alleged by the 
defendant was that she was unquiet, and would bite and kick. The 
plaintiff and his man tried the mare, and a conversation then ensued 
between the parties, in the course of which it was stated that the defen¬ 
dant would not warrant the animal. The plaintiff asked what was the 
reason,.and whether there was any defect in the mare which a veterinary 
surgeon would not pass ? The answer was that the mare was quite right, 
but that she was fired in the hocks and was ill-tempered. A negotiation 
then took place, the result of which was that the mare was bought for 
£150, less’ £2 10s. for expenses of examination by a veterinary surgeon. 
Mr. Hardy, of Grantham, a veterinary surgeon, examined the mare and 
passed her, and she was sent to the plaintiff’s stables, where it was dis¬ 
covered that she was a very bad “wind-sucker,” Another negotiation 
followed, in which the plaintiff alleged that the mare was unsound, and 
requested the defendant to take her back, and the defendant alleged that 
he had never warranted her to be sound. The mare was then offered for 
sale by auction at Cheltenham, and bought in by the plaintiff for fifty- 
one guineas, and was afterwards sold as a “ wind-sucker” to the Duke of 
Beaufort for £120. This action was then brought to recover the differ¬ 
ence between the buying and selling prices, together with the expenses 
and other damage attending the resale. 
There was not so much hard swearing as is usual in such cases. It was 
admitted by the defendant that the mare was a “ wind-sucker,” and that 
the veterinary surgeon who had examined her had pronounced her to be 
sound, and by the plaintiff that no warranty of soundness had been given. 
The only points in dispute were whether the plaintiff had introduced the 
subject of wind-sucking at the time of the purchase, and whether the 
examination of the veterinary surgeon was to be the final close of the 
bargain or not, both which points were affirmed by the plaintiff* and 
denied by the defendant. 
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.— Times, 
( 
