260 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the defendant says—if it is literally true—that up to the time of the sale 
they hunted it, and rode it, and shoed it, and everything, and that it 
never showed symptoms of lameness, it would go very far to show that it 
was some accident which happened during the plantiff’s ownership, and 
for which the defendant would not be responsible, which occasioned the 
lameness. 
The plaintiff tells an entirely different story. On the 18th he buys 
the horse. There is a slight conflict between him and the defendant 
as to what took place at the sale. Roth agree that the plaintiff did 
mount the horse and try it, that the horse was examined, and that the 
plaintiff was satisfied, and thought from the look of the horse that he had 
been sound, and believed him (o be sound at the time. Now I dare say 
some of you know Rugby a great deal better than I do. The plaintiff 
says that the place where it was sold, that the street there was a very 
hard paved street, but that there was sand at the side, and that the horse, 
instead of being trotted on the stones, was trotted on the sand (of course 
the sand would show it less), and afterwards was trotted in a field (that 
would not show it so much). The defendant says he was trotted on the 
hard road of the street. Then upon the 19th he takes him to Man¬ 
chester, and finding the horse would not feed well—though he makes no 
complaint about this—he writes for his pedigree, and to know what lie 
had been fed upon. 
Then comes the 20th, the day afterwards. “Then,” says the plaintiff 
(and now you will have to see whether he is accurate), on the 20th, he 
says, he fancied he saw that the horse was lame. That is the plaintiff’s 
account, and the same remark which I made with regard to the defen¬ 
dant’s statement—I mean as to horse-dealers—exactly applies to the 
plaintiff in what he says. The defendant’s witnesses swear he was 
perfectly sound, and never showed any symptom of lameness up to the 
18th. Now “on the 20th of November,” says the plaintiff, “I put a 
man on him and made him gallop, and found he was lame of the fore 
foot. I put his foot in a poultice, then the next day he was out again. 
Still quite lame. Then I took him to Humphreys.” Humphreys (who 
is not a regularly qualified veterinary surgeon, but a man who shoes 
horses) says “ he. examined him on the 20th, and that then he was lame, 
that he tapped him on the foot, and did those various things which 
he mentioned. He found no heat or symptoms of inflammation—found 
nothing. Took off the shoe to see if there was anything in the shoe to 
cause the lameness—found there was not. Found that the horse was lame 
on the 20th, and sent him back.” If that is true, that he really became 
lame on the 20th, then that is very strong evidence tending to show that 
he was lame before the sale, supposing this lameness to be the same lame¬ 
ness. Then the plaintiff says, after that he took him to Mr. Lawson, 
about the 19th December. On the 19th it appears Lawson did examine 
him, and found him lame on the same fore foot. He did not, at that time, 
say it was navicular disease in his certificate. He only said it was lame. 
He says now he came to the conclusion more decidedly afterwards, on the 
2nd March, that it was chronic navicular disease in the foot, and that 
now, after a further lapse of time, he is sure of it. The lameness 
continues. 
Then there comes that question about the letters. First of all the 
plaintiff and the plaintiff ’s step-son say, and Goodyer states that upon the 
28th November he came and saw the horse, and advised them to write to 
the defendant. It appears, also, that on the 19th December, the day 
Lawson saw the horse, Goodyer was again down there, and saw the horse. 
Now the plaintiff says he instructed his step son to write, and he says he 
