VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 3G9 
cause of lameness was the inflammation of the muscles underneath the 
cap. 
In cross-examination, the witness said the injury to the hock might 
have been caused by a kick or by a twist of the leg, and might have 
been produced within a few days. It was not what he should call a 
chronic disease. The horse was in good condition, barring the cough. 
Re-examined: From the appearance of the leg, he should say that 
the injury, which he considered unsoundness, had existed a week or 
fortnight. 
The sale of the horse at Redruth for £9 was admitted. 
Mr. Rogers , for the defence, addressed the jury, submitting that the 
plaintiff must fail even on his own case. There were four questions for 
their consideration:—1st, Was the horse unsound ? 2nd, If so, was the 
unsoundness present at the time of the purchase? 3rd, Was there any 
warranty given in respect of this particular horse ? 4th, Had there been 
any breach of warranty so as to justify the plaintiff in seeking to recover 
damages? Now, as a lawyer, he was prepared to contend that, even ad¬ 
mitting the injury spoken of, the horse was not in point of law unsound; 
because it was laid down by Chief Justice Eyre that a merely temporary 
defect did not constitute unsoundness. To justify the charge of un¬ 
soundness there must be proof of chronic disease. The evidence of the 
veterinary surgeon showed that the swelling spoken to by Thomas might 
have been produced by a kick, and that the horse was not labouring 
under any unsoundness arising from any chronic disease or permanent 
injury. But if the jury should think the horse was unsound now, they 
must further be satisfied that it was unsound at the time of the purchase 
by Thomas; because between that date and the 4th of January, after 
which time the horse was first seen by Mr. Lewis, the horse might have 
received injury from various causes. And they had evidence only from 
Thomas that the horse was unsound at the time of purchase. But even 
admitting that the horse was unsound at the time of purchase, then he 
contended that Thomas knew of that unsoundness, and acted on that 
knowledge in making his bargain; and it had been laid down in Margett- 
son v. Wright that if there was any defect to which the attention of a 
purchaser was called at the time of bargain, a general warranty of sound¬ 
ness could not be deemed to extend to that part. On the fourth point, 
Mr. Rogers stated that he should distinctly prove, by several respectable 
witnesses, that no warranty was given in respect to this horse, and that if 
any warranty at all was given by Abraham it applied only to the mare, 
which was sold to Thomas for £23, and afterwards repurchased at the 
same price by Abraham. 
The witnesses adduced for the defence were—Thomas Abraham, the 
defendant; Thomas Eva and William Eva, butchers, of Camborne; and 
Thomas Holman. 
The evidence on the two sides was of a very conflicting nature, espe¬ 
cially on the question of warranty or no warranty. 
In his reply, Mr. Raull said his learned friend’s legal authority in sup¬ 
port of his opinion that temporary lameness was not unsoundness was 
doubtless very good at the time when it was published; but in a book of 
undoubted authority he (Mr. Pauli) found it laid down by Lord Ellen- 
borough—“ That an infirmity, as a temporary lameness, which renders a 
horse less fit for present use or convenience, though not of a permanent 
nature, and though removed after an action brought, is an unsoundness.” 
It was also ruled that a cough, though not permanent, was an unsound¬ 
ness. The learned advocate then addressed himself to the facts in 
evidence, contending that, as well from the probabilities of the case as 
from comparison of the witnesses, the jury must find for the plaintiff. 
