VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
767 
amlned a bay gelding belonging to Mr. Benjamin, and he found it was lame 
on the fore-foot. This Mr. Broad attributed to its very flat and weak 
fore-feet.] This letter had been written the very morning after the 
horse had been purchased at Tan-hill fair. In reply Mr. Holmes wrote 
a letter. [This was read; It was in substance that the defendant was 
greatly surprised to learn that the horse was lame. There had never 
been the least fault to be found with the animal; he’ had always been 
perfectly safe and free from vice, and the defendant did not consider 
himself responsible for any accident which might have taken place since. 
The animal was well known in the village to be an excellent horse, and 
without any fault, and the formation of his feet could be seen at the time 
he was bought.] Mr. Broad was of opinion that the fault was a per¬ 
manent one—tl{e heels touching the ground, so that the frog, the part 
which ought to be protected from pressure, was not so protected, but 
actually pressed on the ground. This must have been known to the 
defendant, because the shoe was an irregularly-formed one. This, how¬ 
ever, would not appear at Tan-hill, because the plaintiff had then no 
opportunity of trying the horse on the high road. The horse might have 
gone on very well indeed on a farm ; but when he came to be driven on 
the road, he turned lame. It might be that the jury would have called 
before them veterinary surgeons on behalf of the defendant, but “ the 
proof of the pudding was in the eating,” and here was a demonstration 
that the horse was unsound, for a certificate from Mr. Broad was sent 
which stated that the horse was unsound. After being kept for some 
time, the horse was put up by public auction, Mr. Holmes having every 
opportunity given him for attending the sale, notice having been given 
and a handbill also being sent to him. The horse was sold in the JSath 
market, and it went into the hands of a perfect stranger, fetching £7. A 
number of persons were present at the sale; and the witnesses would tell 
them that the horse was irretrievably lame. He thought the jury would 
come to the conclusion that everything with regard to plaintiff’s conduct 
had been done regularly, and had the defendant been disposed to do 
what was just and fair, the action would not have been brought, for all 
the plaintiff wanted was that the animal should be taken back, and his 
money returned. Everything had been done with a view to settle the 
matter; but as the defendant refused to do that, he was responsible for 
being summoned before the jury. 
T/ie Flaintijf was then called, and on being sworn, said; I am a coal 
merchant at Bath, carrying on an extensive business, in succession to my 
father. I was at Tan-hill fair on the 6th of August, I bought a bay 
gelding of the defendant’s wife. I had no opportunity of trying the 
horse on the road, the fair being held on the turf. The horse ap¬ 
peared sound when purchased. The defendant’s wife said it was five 
years old. I paid a cheque for £30 for the horse, for which I had a 
receipt. I saw the horse taken home. I rode a slight distance behind 
the horse, and it came home very quietly and coolly in about three hours. 
It was dark at the time, so that I could not say whether it was lame. I 
saw the horse the next morning about six o’clock. On the near fore-foot 
it went verv lame indeed, when it was brought out of the stable for water. 
In consequence of that I sent for Mr. Broad, the veterinary surgeon, 
who came to me, and in consequence of a communication from Mr. Broad, 
I wrote to the defendant. [The letter, together with the certificate, were 
put in and read. The reply of the defendant was also read.] I kept the 
horse at my establishment for two or three days, for which no charge is 
made in the bill. As soon as I received the defendant’s reply, I sent it to 
Mr. Broad’s establishment. The horse was ultimately sold by auction in 
