368 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
REDRUTH COUNTY COURT.— Tuesday. 
Before C. D. Bevan, Esq. 
A WARRANTY CASE. 
The following case was heard before a jury of five. 
THOMAS V. ABRAHAM. 
Mr. Pauli (Pauli and Linton) for plaintiff; Mr. H. Rogers for de¬ 
fendant. 
The case opened for the plaintiff was that on the 8th of December, at 
Camborne, the plaintiff, a well-known horse-dealer, agreed to buy of the 
defendant, a farmer of Camborne, two horses for £40; the defendant 
warranting both to be sound and good workers, and the plaintiff paying 
£5 on account. The horses, though sold together, were separately priced 
at £23 and £l7. About the hock of the lower-priced horse the plaintiff 
observed an appearance which he did not like, and specially called the 
defendant’s attention to it, on which the defendant assured him it was all 
right—that the swollen appearance was only the result of a kick from 
another horse, and that he would warrant the leg to be sound. The 
horses were not delivered at the time of purchase, but remained in the 
possession of a Mr. Jewell until the completion of the transaction. Sub¬ 
sequently the defendant bought back the £23 horse (a mare) at that 
price, and the other horse was finally sold to plaintiff for £17 on the 
warranty stated, the plaintiff' paying the balance of £12. The horse re¬ 
ceived by plaintiff was kept in his stables a few days, and then sold with 
a warranty to a Mr. Gundry, for a Mrs. Nicholls, for £20 certain and 
£2 extra in a month if the horse should turn out well. But the next 
day Gundry brought back the horse, and returned it in consequence of 
its being lame and unfit for use. Plaintiff then called in a veterinary 
surgeon, who examined the horse, and found that on the lame leg the cap 
of the hock had been knocked out of place. Plaintiff then sent back the 
horse to defendant, but defendant refused to take it back, and, thereupon, 
plaintiff had the horse sold by auction at Redruth, where it realised £9. 
The plaintiff now brought his action for the recovery of £8 difference, 
and £l for keep of the horse. 
There were examined in support of the plaintiff’s case—the plaintiff 
himself; Mr. Bennett, a farmer, of Illogan; John Prout, a farmer, of 
Camborne; George Bray; Charles Gundry; and Mr. John Lewis, a 
veterinary surgeon. 
Mr. Lewis stated that when requested to examine the horse he found it 
had an enlargement of the windpipe and a nasty cough; this was, how¬ 
ever, only a temporary affection, though it might possibly become chronic 
and lead to unsoundness. He found the cap of the hock off, and beneath 
it there was inflammation, which interfered with the horse’s action, .and 
might cause lameness; and this latter ailment he should call unsound¬ 
ness. The appearance of this ailment was such as he should say must 
have been observable to any horse-dealer or other person accustomed to 
horses. The detachment of the cap was not a cause of lameness; the 
