258 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. Hewitt. Hewitt signed the written memorandum of sale, by which 
it appears that the plaintiff bought for “£90 the chestnut gelding, war¬ 
ranted soundso that there is no doubt that on the 18th of November 
this horse was sold, and warranted sound; and the question is, whether, 
on that day, he really was sound or not. If he was sound on that day, 
and has become unsound since, that is Mr. Thompson’s misfortune, and 
the defendant is not in the least, liable to make it good. But if the 
effects of the unsoundness existed at that time, and have become visible 
since, then there has been a breach of this warranty, and your verdict 
must be for the plaintiff. 
Now the evidence that has been called was very strong to show that 
the horse is now lame of the navicular disease, which is unsoundness ; 
and the question is, whether or not that unsoundness had commenced 
on or before the 18th of November, the day on which the horse was 
sold; and that will be the point upon which your verdict will have to 
turn. 
Now I must begin by disclaiming, myself, every possible knowledge of 
horse-jockeying; I know nothing about it, literally and truly. In this 
case 1 know nothing about it except what I have collected from what 
the witnesses have said. You will judge of what the witnesses, from 
your own recollection, have said, and you will say what you think the 
result of their evidence is. 
Now my own impression is, that the navicular disease, which is what 
they say this horse has got, comes in this way :—It is in the joint of the 
foot; and when the horse has sustained some injury or other which 
strains the tendon as it passes over the navicular bone in the centre of 
the foot on the inside of the joint, disease is set up there, so that the 
tendon gets dry and the joint grates a little; that is, the horse is unable 
to use that foot after he has gone through any exertion, and the animal 
is practically useless, and cannot do any very heavy work. When he 
does any work, this begins to show itself. When he stands idle the effect 
goes off, but whenever he is set to work again it would come out. On 
the other hand, it is averred that this disease may be occasioned in one 
or two different ways; that it may arise, and frequently does arise, from 
an accident happening to the horse which would occasion inflammation 
and pain to the horse, which results in that disease. Then, I understand, 
that for a time, after the horse has recently had the accident, his hoof 
is inflamed, and the poor animal suffers pain. You can feel it hot, and 
even when it is not hot if you take a hammer and tap the hoof, the 
animal, which would in its healthy state not mind anything about it, 
would wince, and show that it felt pain when this disease exists after a 
recent injury. That shows that there is inflammation going on, and they 
would expect, as men of skill, that when an internal injury has been 
received the animal would suffer pain, and consequently they can tell 
when they examine the foot. If it is not hot, and the animal does not 
wince, it is proof that it is not tender; from which they, as men of skill, 
draw the conclusion that there has been no recent injury. Lawson said 
it would probably show. Some of the others said it would be three 
months, which, you see, would be some proof that there was no recent 
injury unless there be heat and tenderness at the time when they touched 
it. It appears further, from what they say (of which of course you will 
have to judge), that, when the animal has suffered from violent inflam¬ 
mation, from the inflammatory effects the hoof contracts and shows a 
different appearance. And further, they say, that even when there has 
been a slow, long-continued inflammation which has gone on slowly, that 
the hoof would contract then, although more slowly. When the disease 
