OBSERVATIONS ON SOUNDNESS. 
21 
much irritation of the periosteum, and will probably end in 
lameness. To the question, Does splint constitute unsound¬ 
ness? I will append the decision of Lord Chief Justice Tindal. 
Oliphant, at page 83, writes as follows:— 
“ A splint, like a bone spavin, is an excresence or bony 
deposit on the leg of a horse, and the danger in both cases is 
the probability of their interfering with his action ; the bone 
spavin, by preventing the proper flexion of the joint, and the 
splint, by pressing on the sinews of the leg. Lameness is 
thus produced by each; by bone spavin nearly always, by a 
splint sometimes. It entirely depends on the situation of the 
bony tumour on the inside of the shank-bone, whether a 
splint is to be considered an unsoundness. If it is not in the 
neighbourhood of any joint, so as to interfere with its action, 
and if it does not press upon any ligament or tendon, it can 
be no cause of unsoundness; and although it is often very 
unsightly, it does not lessen the capabilities and value of the 
animal." 
“In an action on the warranty of a horse f to be sound 
wind and limb at this time the breach of which was lameness, 
produced by a splint, it was given in evidence that a splint 
might or might not be the efficient cause of lameness, accord¬ 
ing to its position, its size and extent; that the splint in this 
instance was in a very bad situation, as it pressed upon one 
of the sinews of the leg, and was calculated to produce, when 
the horse was worked, inflammation of the sinew and conse¬ 
quent lameness. Lord Chief Justice Tindal said, 4 It now 
appears that some splints cause lameness and others do not, 
and that the consequences of a splint cannot be apparent at 
the time, like those of the loss of an eye, or any other blemish 
or defect visible to a common observer. We therefore think 
that by the terms of this written warranty the parties meant 
that this was not, at that time, a splint which would be the 
cause of future lameness, and that the jury have found 
that it was. We therefore think that the warranty was 
broken? ” 
I may with truth assert that ninety-nine horses out of 
every hundred examined by me have something analogous to 
splint situated in the vicinity of the small metacarpal bone, and 
the question invariably put is the following: “ Do you think 
that splint will come against him?" These are the words 
generally made use of. Now, how are we to answer the 
question ? By looking closely to the situation of the deposit 
with a view to ascertain if it interferes with tendon or liga¬ 
ment, or if it is likely to do so at any future time. This is 
the reply one would most likely receive: this reads very well 
