498 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the warrant)', and the death of the horse. The only question to 
try was whether the horse was unsound on the day Mr. Bairstow 
bought it, namely, on the 10th of February. 
Mr. Bruce then called Mr. McTaggart , veterinary surgeon, who 
proved attending the horse on the 10th of February, when the 
animal was suffering from pleuritis of so severe a form, that he was 
doubtful of the issue, and it died on the 29th of February. Upon 
a post-mortem examination, made on the 2nd of March, he found a 
firm adhesion of the lungs, which must have existed for many 
months; disorganization and fatty degeneration of the kidneys, so 
that they could not properly perform their function, which must 
have been going on for not less than four months. The liver was 
also completely broken up from disease. 
Mr. Edward Coleman Dray , veterinary surgeon, who assisted in 
the post-mortem examination, described the state of the animal; and 
said that disease of the liver, lungs, and the kidneys must have 
existed three or four months before death. In cross-examination, 
he said that a horse might be suffering to a certain extent, from 
the complication of diseases which he had described, and yet exhibit 
no symptoms that would attract the attention of non-professional 
persons. It might eat its food regularly, do its work pretty well, 
even up to a few hours of its death, without showing outward signs 
of disease to an inexperienced eye. In the present instance he 
thought the horse would display no symptoms of disease until it 
was put to work, when the sudden exertion, coupled with the 
diseased state of the organs, would bring about its death. 
Mr. Carter and Mr. Williams gave corroborative testimony; and 
all agreed that the disease must have existed upwards of two months 
before the animal’s death. 
Mr. Bairstow and Mr. Crossley were called to prove the purchase 
and death of the horse; and then 
Mr. Paley addressed the jury for the defence, contending that 
there was no disease about the horse when it was sold to plaintiff; 
that it caught cold on the railway, was attacked with pleurisy, and 
died of that disease. He ridiculed the evidence of the veterinary 
surgeons, and said he would prove by a number of witnesses that, 
up to the moment the horse left Mr. Whincup’s hands, it was in 
perfect health, and had always been so. He contended that the 
horse was not suffering from disease on the 10th of February; and, 
that being so, the defendant was entitled to their verdict. 
Mr. Whincup, the defendant; Mr. Henry Outhwaite , who sold 
the horse to the defendant; Mr. George Turner ; Mr. John Dunston ; 
Mr. Willis Goodbarn ; and Mr. S. Ramsden y veterinary surgeon, 
Ouseburn, were called, and proved that the horse had always eaten 
well, worked well, and shown no symptoms w r hatever of disease. 
Mr. Bruce replied ; and 
His Honour summed up, remarking that there was a single issue 
to try, and it was very satisfactory to know that there was no im¬ 
putation of fraud or dishonorable motives imputed on either side. 
If the jury were of opinion that the horse was on the 10th of Feb¬ 
ruary suffering under any of the diseases described by the veterinary 
