VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
771 
common experience told them that a horse might go out right and 
come in lame; but would they send that horse to a veterinary surgeon, 
and sell him as an unsound horse, or would they not see whether it was 
a temporary injury or a permanent one ? He believed, however, that 
that was not the way they did business in the West of England, for he 
remembered a case somewhat similar to this at Marlborough. All he 
(Mr. Rowland) asked the jury to believe was that this horse was sold in 
the bond fide belief that he was sound, and his witnesses would prove 
that fact- 
His Honour. —Surely you don’t mean to argue that although under 
those circumstances the horse was unsound, the warranty would not 
avail? These remarks might be very important on the question of 
character ; but they are wholly unimportant on a question of law. What 
has the defendant’s belief to do with the present case ? He may have 
believed that the horse was sound, but that won’t avail. You gave a 
warranty, believing the horse to be sound; the horse turned out unsound, 
and your warranty makes you responsible. 
Mr. Rozcland.—1 submit that we are not responsible beyond the ques¬ 
tion of our warranty. 
His Honour. —Certainly not. 
Mr. Rowland. —Then we have not given a warranty beyond what we 
are prepared to prove. 
His Honour. —Do you mean to say that if you believe a horse to be 
sound, and with that belief you give a warranty of the soundness, and 
yet though it turn out that it was unsound, that you are not liable ? 
Mr. Rowland. —Yes, I do. I submit this was a limited warranty. 
His Honour. —You may argue that the horse was sound, but that is 
quite another thing. 
Mr. Rowland. —Then, your Honour, I have no case. 
His Honour. —How can you say that? You don’t distinguish between 
the two things. I have no doubt you have evidence that the horse was 
sound. You put it to the jury just now that the defendant believed his 
horse was sound, and although he gave a warranty, and the animal proved 
to be unsound, he was not liable. 
Mr. Rowland said he was not prepared to argue the case on the broad 
footing just put by his Honour. 
His Ho7iour said he had never known Mr. Rowland wilfully to misstate 
anything; but the argument he had just propounded was an erroneous 
• proposition of law which he could not allow to pass unnoticed. 
Mr. Rowland said he had been twice stopped in his address to the jury, 
and he therefore preferred to let the case go on its- own merits. 
His Honour. —Don’t be hasty. 
Mr. Rowland, after some hesitation, said he would not proceed with 
his address, and he then called 
M7's. Jane Holmes, who said—I am the wife of Mr. George Holmes, of 
Wootton Rivers, who is an invalid. I remember going to Tan-hill fair 
this year with my son, and three or four horses. There was a bay cart¬ 
horse which I had had in my possession for three years. I sold it to the 
plaintiff for £30. During the time we had that horse he was never lame. 
He was frequently on the hard road. The horse was constantly working, 
up to the fair, and Avas not “made up” for sale. A few Aveeks before 1 
refused £25 for the horse. I signed the warranty, having previously read 
it. I sold two horses, but I gave no Avarranty Avith the second. 
His Honour. —What Avas done with the second horse has nothing to do 
Avith this case. 
Mr. Bartrum ,—Who bought the second horse ? 
