214 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
sale.” If, said the learned counsel, Mr. Blagrave had given 
written instructions to his son “ to the contrary,” he ought to have 
advertised it, because Messrs. Tattersall could not be expected to say 
to every young man who had come of age, “ I beg your pardon, 
but have you got your papa’s permission to buy?” That was one 
expedient used by Mr. Blagrave to get rid of his son’s bargain ; 
but he went on in the same letter to say:—“The animal Buxton is 
pronounced by a veterinary surgeon to have a disease of the wind, 
with roaring, which not only renders the animal unsound, but 
incapable of performing the duties of a hunter. Under these cir¬ 
cumstances Mr. Blagrave would take it as an act of kindness and 
courtesy if he were permitted to return the horse. If his son had 
any money of his own lie might have to stand by his bargain, but 
as it is the loss must fall entirely upon the father.” On July 31st 
Mr. Blagrave wrote to Messrs. Tattersall renewing the same sugges¬ 
tion :—“ Mr. II. Barry Blagrave purchased a horse for £120 15s. 
(115 gs.) He found on riding the horse from Reading Station to 
this place (Calcot Park, a distance of three miles) that he was "a 
c roarer,’ and lie sent immediately for a veterinary surgeon from 
Reading, who gave a certificate, and pronounced him a ‘ roarer,’ 
and consequently incapable of performing his duties as a hunter, as 
described in the catalogue. I wish to know what is to be done with 
the animal.” Messrs. Tattersall replied to that :—■“ We are very 
much surprised at the stopping of your cheque. You will be 
extremely annoyed if we refuse to take a cheque of yours again. 
It was not sold as a good hunter, but, as Lord Combermere will 
prove, the horse is a clever hunter.” Then on the 23d of July 
Mr. Blagrave wrote again to Messrs. Tattersall:—“Since writing 
you I have received an answer that Lord Combermere declines to 
take back the horse. As my son has left England for the Continent, 
I am afraid his lordship will have some difficulty in getting the 
money. It will be open to you to bring an action against my son, 
but I give you fair notice that he has no money of his own, and no 
property in reversion, and nothing will induce me to pay the money 
for him.” Messrs. Tattersall replied “ Whatever may be the dif¬ 
ference between your son and Lord Combermere, we beg to say 
that as you have thought proper to stop the cheque drawn in our 
favour, we must proceed against you for the amount.” Mr. Bla¬ 
grave had, therefore, put his son in an awkward position, which 
might be construed by the legal profession as “obtaining money by 
false pretences,” by representing that he had assets at his banker’s 
to pay a cheque, whereas he had nothing at all. On the 27th July, 
Mr. Blagrave wrote:—“ I did not pretend to say that my son had no 
money to pay £120 fora horse; but if the verdict of the jury 
should be against him, in addition to the price of the horse, there 
will be costs to pay, and I am ignorant of any means he may possess 
to meet them.” Mr. Blagrave sent back the horse to Messrs. 
Tattersall’s with the groom, but Messrs. Tattersall sent it to Batty’s, 
with instructions that it should be kept there for Mr. Blagrave. 
The horse is still at Batty’s. The learned counsel said it was really 
