VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 321 
Mr. Crosse then addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant.—He 
submitted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, inasmuch as there had 
been no legal contract. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show 
that this case came within the Statute of Frauds, which would have 
required in this case that the animal should have been received by 
defendant; that there should be a written contract, or that part of the 
money should have been paid. Perhaps his friend (Mr. Pencraft) would 
contend that there had been a constructive delivery of the mare, the de¬ 
fendant having requested that she might be taken into plaintiff’s stable 
for a few days, or that there was a delivery pursuant to the letter sent by 
defendant, requesting she might be sent to the “Commercial Inn ” on a 
given day. He (Mr. Crosse) contended that neither of these circum¬ 
stances would amount to an acceptance or receipt of the animal within 
the meaning of the 17th section of the Statute of Frauds. In support of 
his views, the learned gentleman cited the case Howe v. Palmer (B. and 
A.), published in the most recent edition of ‘ Chitty on Contracts.’ With 
regard to the delivery at the “ Commercial Inn,” Bideford, he submitted 
that that was no delivery within the meaning of the statute. The mare 
was bought subject to the opinion of Mr. Parsons, and when it was found 
that his opinion was diametrically opposed to Mr. Gregory’s, she was im¬ 
mediately returned to the owner. Mr. Parsons pronounced the mare to be 
unsound; and this induced the defendant to return her, with the note 
that had been read. It was true Mr. Hole sent her back again, but that 
could not help him if there had not been a previous delivery and accept¬ 
ance of the mare. The learned gentleman then entered into an elaborate 
argument to prove that the objections he had raised must be fatal to the 
plaintiff’s case. There was no part of Mr. Beedle’s conduct that was not 
perfectly consistent with a direct refusal of the mare. He then cited the 
decision of the superior court in the case Carter v. Touissant, which, he 
said, was quite in point and confirmatory of his view that the present 
case did not come within the range of the Statute of Frauds, and that 
plaintiff must necessarily be nonsuited. 
His Honour .—I shall not nonsuit. (Applause.) 
Mr. Crosse .—Perhaps it would be well to restrain such demonstrations. 
His Honour .—I think the applause quite uncalled for. 
Mr. Crosse then addressed himself to the main features of the case. 
He said he was in great difficulty, owing to the absence of a material 
witness—Mr. Drake, the eminent veterinary surgeon, of Exeter, on whose 
opinion he relied, which, indeed, induced him to advise his client to 
defend this action. Mr. Drake had given a certificate in which he stated 
that the tendency of the injury plaintiff’s mare had sustained was to 
render her permanently unsound. Mr. Parsons* opinion was to the 
same effect. The learned gentleman then reviewed the evidence adduced 
by the plaintiff and his witnesses, and stated that he should be prepared 
to prove by the defendant’s servant that the mare, when delivered at the 
“Commercial Inn,” knuckled and tripped; that he did not consider it 
safe to ride her. In conclusion, he expressed his regret that the case had 
not been settled by the mediation of a third party. 
Mr. Thomas Beedle sworn,—I live at Bradworthy, and am the defendant 
in this action. The first time I saw the plaintiff’s mare was on lOtli Feb¬ 
ruary, at Wooley. I had some conversation with Mr. Hole about the 
mare, which he began. He said the injury was not likely to interfere 
with her usefulness—that Mr. Gregory was of the same opinion. As to 
the swelling, he proposed to reduce it with iodine when the mare had 
rest. We had a subsequent conversation, on the 16th February. I re¬ 
peatedly told Mr. Hole that I had no wish to buy the horse. I said I 
XXXVI. 21 
