Mil. SFOONElt’s WORK. ON tfliE FOOT Of THE HORSE. 215 
an undefended action, for all their pleas were negatived by the 
correspondence ; but lie supposed the substantial point taken by the 
other side would be as to the condition of the horse, and as to this 
be should call witnesses. 
After evidence bad been led, 
Mr. Digby Seymour , Q.C., addressed the jury. He said the first 
question was, “Did the catalogue with the name ‘ hunter ’ carry 
with it a condition ; and if so, was it broken ?” He contended that 
it meant the definition given to it by Mr. Pain in selling horses, 
viz., to be “sound in wind and eyes.” The learned counsel then 
went on to say that his witnesses bad proved that this horse was an 
unsound horse, and that as the plaintiff had given a warranty by 
describing the horse as a “hunter,” his client was entitled to the 
verdict of the jury. 
Mr. Huddleston , Q.C., having addressed the jury on behalf of the 
plaintiffs, 
His Lordsldp commenced to sum up. The material allegation, 
he said, was that the horse was sold as a good hunter, whereas it 
was alleged that he was not a good hunter. The real plaintiff in the 
case was probably Lord Combermere, for Messrs. Tattersall were 
really only his agents. His lordship having analysed part of the 
evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, was interrupted by 
A Juryman , who said they were all of one opinion, and would 
rather not trouble his lordship to sum up the whole of the evidence. 
His Lordship said he should only be too glad if the counsel on 
both sides agreed. 
There being an acquiescence on the part of counsel, 
The jury at once returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for the 
£120 Ids., and the judge certified for costs of a special jury.— 
North British Agriculturist. 
THE ‘ SPORTING TIMES' AND MR. SPOONER'S 
WORK ON TPIE FOOT OF THE PIORSE. 
Eling House, Eling, Southampton. 
Gentlemen, 
AFebruary 12th, 1872. 
In your obituary notice of the late Professor Spooner, 
and your tribute to his good qualities, in which the profession fully 
