497 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
KNARESBRO’ COUNTY COURT. 
Before Mr. Sergeant Dowling. 
Thursday, May 12th, 1864. 
BAIRSTOW V. WHINCUP. 
Chrontc Disease of Pleura, Liver, and Kidneys. 
Mr. Peter Bairstow, horse dealer, of Buttersliaw, near Bradford, 
sued Mr. William Whincup, of Greenhammerton, for £50, being 
damages incurred by breach of a warranty of a horse. 
Mr. Bruce, barrister (instructed by Messrs. Terry and Watson, 
solicitors, Bradford), appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Palev, 
solicitor, York, for the defendant. 
The case was tried by a jury, consisting of Messrs. I. T. Shutt, 
T. Gascoigne, Thomas Terry, W. Walker, and William Whittaker. 
Mr. Bruce , in opening the case, said that the plaintiff and de¬ 
fendant were together at Northallerton fair on the 10th of February 
last, and the plaintiff there bought of defendant a gray draught 
horse for £43, and received with the animal a warranty of sound¬ 
ness. The horse was taken to Bradford the same day in a horse¬ 
box, the plaintiff travelling with it. On the 13th of February, 
plaintiff sold the horse to Mr. Crosslev, of Elland, for £48. On 
the 15th of February the animal did about half a day’s work ; on 
the 16th it was ill; and in spite of the efforts of a veterinary 
surgeon it died on the 29th February. Mr. Crossley informed the 
plaintiff of the facts, and plaintiff engaged three experienced veteri¬ 
nary surgeons, viz., Mr. E. C. Dray, of Leeds; Mr. Joseph Carter, 
Bradford, and Mr. W. Williams, Bradford, to attend a post-inortem 
examination, which Mr. Crossley had directed his own veterinary 
surgeon (Mr. McTaggart, Halifax) to make of the animal, for the 
purpose of ascertaining the cause of death. That examination was 
made on the 2nd of March. The whole of the veterinary surgeons 
agreed that death had arisen from pleurisy, associated with disease 
of the liver, amounting to what is sometimes called a rotten liver, 
and fatty degeneration of the kidneys, which had gone on to such 
an extent, that they could not properly perform their functions. 
Having given Mr. Crossley a warranty, and having been assured 
by the whole of the veterinary surgeons that these diseases must 
have existed for more than two months, he felt bound in honour to 
return to Mr. Crossley the purchase-money of the horse, and 
accordingly did so. He then applied to the defendant for the 
money which he had paid for the horse; but the defendant never 
took the slightest notice of his application. Hence the present 
action was brought to recover the purchase-money and costs, to 
which he (Mr. Bairstow) had been put under the warranty. 
Mr. Paley, in reply to his Honour, said he was prepared to admit 
