VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
261 
wrote tw5ce to the defendant before the 13th January, and received no 
answer- Once the step-son fixes the date, saying that it was on the d ly 
that Mr. Goodyer came. He says he wrote both of these letters, and 
received no answer to them. Then he says he wrote the letter of January 
13th, and as he says, having received no answer to his previous letters, he 
began to keep copies of the letters. The defendant says, positively, he got 
no such letters. No doubt there is a good deal in this point as to his prompt¬ 
ness in writing as soon as he thought the horse was lame. It would be an 
argument against him if he did not do it, as in that case nearly two months 
would have elapsed before apprising him of the horse being lame, and 
of course still more so if he were to say now that he did write when he 
did not. If he were saying it falsely it would have considerable weight as 
against the rest of his evidence. It is two years ago now, and he may pos¬ 
sibly have made a mistake. Looking at the letters themselves, and find¬ 
ing that the letter of January 13th was the first letter of which a copy was 
kept, I think that afterwards the plaintiff and his step-son may have had a 
notion that they must have been written before. But I think the letters 
themselves look as if the letter of the 1 3 th January was the first that was writ¬ 
ten. On January 13 th, the plaintiff dictates this letter to his step-son. 
“Sir,—After I got your chestnut horse back from Rugby,” &c. (Reads 
letter.) Now I certainly don’tthink, reading that letter, that it is exactly the 
sort of letter that a man would write who had written twice before, stating 
that the horse was lame, and had got no answer. Therefore I confess 
that in reading this letter, it strikes me that it is probable that such letters 
icere not written before. I think—without putting it down as being perjury— 
it must be a mistake. The defendant immediately answers that letter of 
the 13th, “ Sir,—Yours of the 13th came to hand this morning,” See. 
(Reads letter.) Now I have no doubt it is quite true that the plaintiff had 
been told by a man that the horse had been sold to a Mr. Collins and 
returned by him. But it now appears, according to the defendant’s story, 
which seems to be quite true, that on that day, at Rugby Fair, Collins 
saw the horse, and had never seen him before. There seems to have been 
some mistake, and, at all events, nothing was asked as to that. “ And as 
you say,” says the defendant, “ he has been ill ever since you had him,” 
&c. (Reads letter.) Well, now, upon that I think it is quite fair to make 
this remark—that if the two letters had been written, you would have 
expected when it was quite fresh in their minds they would have answered 
that at once, and would have said, “Why I did write to you, twice. 
Don’t you remember I wrote to you first a month since, and afterwards 
a fortnight since.” They don’t say that, but they answer thus, “ Dear 
Sir,—The horse,” &c. (Reads letter.) To that the defendant does not send 
an answer; he does not send a veterinary surgeon to examine him. I 
think it would have been much better if he had, for then we should 
have had his evidence, and should have known more distinctly how mat¬ 
ters stood. I have examined the letters, but I do not know that there is 
anything more of importance to be derived from them. It appears the 
horse had been subsequently ill with pneumonia, or bronchitis, or some¬ 
thing of that sort, and that he was at Lawson’s again, and was lame. 
Lawson examines him again, and declares him to be unsound. The 
plaintiff says he was lame upon the 20th, and took him to Humphreys. 
Humphreys says, “ On the 20th I did see him, and then he was lame. His 
foot had no inflammatory appearance'at all, and no corn. I looked, and 
was satisfied of that.” Now that, certainly, if it is true, would go a good 
way to make one think that the lameness was owing to something that 
occurred before the sale. Then Mr. Goodyer, who it appears knew both 
plaintiff and defendant, says, that at Manchester, on the 28th November, 
