706 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
of it down was essentially necessary to the operation, and the de¬ 
fendant evidently superintended the men just as if they had been 
his own. He had no doubt that in point of law Mr. Leather had a 
fair right to claim indemnification. 
A verdict would be entered for the plaintiff, damages £30, with 
costs .—Crewe Guardian. 
WILTS SUMMER ASSIZES, SALISBURY. 
Palmer v. Cannon. 
(Before Mr. Justice Lush.) 
BREACH OF WARRANTY.—“ SHYING.” 
« 
Mr. Edlin, Q.C., and Mr. T. W. Saunders (instructed by Mr. 
Dyer, of Bath) were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Cole, Q.C., and 
Mr. Prior Goldney (instructed by Messrs. Keary and Co., of Chip¬ 
penham) appeared for the defendant. 
The action was brought to recover sixty guineas for a breach of 
warranty of a horse, which, it was allowed, the defendant had re¬ 
presented to be “ quiet to ride and drive, and free from vice, and 
not to crib-bite.” 
Mr. JEdlin stated the case. The plaintiff, he said, was a magis¬ 
trate of Wiltshire, living at Berryfield House, near Bradford-on- 
Avon. The defendant was a farmer and auctioneer residing near 
Chippenham. Towards the end of last year Mr. Palmer was in 
want of a horse, and a horse dealer named Clark, living at Melk- 
sham, informed him that Mr. Cannon had one that would exactly 
suit him. The plaintiff thereupon wrote to the defendant, stating 
that he would come over with his coachman to see the animal. The 
defendant replied that he knew nothing about coachmen, but that 
he should be happy to show the horse to the plaintiff himself. The 
plaintiff, nevertheless, took his coachman with him when he went to 
see the horse on the 26th December. The horse, on being tried, 
“ shied slightly,” and the coachman said, “ I hope he is not given 
to these tricks.” The defendant replied, “ I never knew him do 
such a thing before.” The defendant fixed the price at 100 guineas, 
but did not warrant the horse sound. All he did was to warrant it 
free from vice, perfectly quiet to ride and drive, and not to crib- 
bite. The plaintiff took time to consider, but in the course of a 
few days sent the defendant a cheque for £100, on which the fol¬ 
lowing endorsement was made and signed by the defendant:— 
“Received of Mr. Palmer the sum of £100, for a bay gelding slx 
years old, warranted quiet to ride and drive, free from vice, and not 
to crib-bite.’’ 
The horse did not answer the description given in the warranty. 
On the contrary, it turned out to be “a persistent and inveterate 
shyer.” It shied at almost everything. On one occasion it ran 
