VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
197 
Quartermaine, jun. The plaintiff noticed some slight blemish upon the 
horse’s throat, but took no particular notice of it, because both then and 
on the 31st of March Colonel Morris said that the horse was perfectly 
well, and that there was not a sounder horse in the kingdom. Mr. 
Quartermaine said, “Of course you will warrant the horse?” to which 
the alleged reply was, “ Oh, of course; there is not a sounder horse in 
the kingdom.” Thereupon the plaintiff said he would have the horse at 
the price asked, and on the horse being sent to Mr. Quartermaine 5 s 
stables a cheque was returned for the amount. Every care was, of course, 
taken of so valuable an animal by the buyer, and about the 25th or 26th 
of April it was sold to the Hon. Mr. Coventry for 350/. A few days after 
this sale Mr. Quartermaine received an intimation from Mr. Coventry 
that there was something the matter with the horse’s wind. The horse 
was accordingly taken to the Veterinary College, where he was examined, 
and pronounced to be a “ whistler.” Mr. Quartermaine at once cancelled 
the sale to Mr. Coventry, and communicated with the defendant, who, 
however, declined to take back the horse. The horse was kept by the 
plaintiff down to July, when it was sold at Tattersall’s, and fetched (after 
deducting expenses) 158/. As. Gd., leaving a loss of 91/. 15,*. Gd. upon 
the amount paid by the plaintiff. This was the sum now claimed, together 
with 12/. 4s. Gd. and 100/. loss sustained upon the cancelled re-sale to 
Mr. Coventry, making up a total of 204/. 
The Lord Chief Justice .—It is doubtful whether the plaintiff can recover 
the 100/. There is a question now pending in the courts on this point. 
It is quite clear that a person who receives a false warranty can recover 
any loss he has thereby sustained. But whether he is entitled to recover 
mere profit which he would never have made if a true representation had 
been made to him, is a nice question, which awaits decision, and which 
must therefore be reserved in this case. 
It was further shown, on the part of the plaintiff, that so far from the 
horse having nothing the matter with him, it had in 1861 been under the 
care of Mr. Mavor, the veterinary surgeon, for strangles, and even in 
the March of 1863 the horse had had an attack of inflammation of the 
lungs, and had been under the care of Mr. Williams. Plaintiff admitted 
that he did not hear any “ whistling” when the horse was trotted in 
Cadogan Place; but then, though it was trotted pretty fast, it did not go 
at the rate of twelve miles an hour, for the horse could not do such a 
pace. He denied that previous to the sale defendant urged him to have 
the horse examined by a veterinary surgeon; nor did he hear from the 
defendant about the horse having been in 1861 under Mr. Mavor’s care. 
He should never have thought of buying the animal for so high a price, 
and without a minute examination, except upon a warranty. When the 
horse was sold at Tattersall’s he objected to its being saddled and ridden, 
because it was entered as a harness horse, because if it had been ridden 
round the ring every one would have seen that it was a whistler, and it 
would not have fetched half the sum obtained for it. 
It was stated that the horse was bought at Tattersall’s by Sir James 
Fergusson, M.P. 
Mr. George Barker, assistant to Mr. Williams, veterinary surgeon, of 
Pimlico (who was too ill to give his evidence), and Mr. Mavor , a well- 
known veterinary surgeon, deposed that the horse had suffered from 
strangles in 1861, and was then ill about a month, and that last March 
the horse suffered from congestion of the lungs, for which mustard poul¬ 
tices were applied. 
Mr. Mavor said that strangles was a common cause of “ whistling,” and 
“whistling” was a decided unsoundness; but he had no idea, up to the 
