564 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
home quietly as he will tell you. On the following morning the plaintiff 
and his ostler, named White, took her out of the stable, and she was 
observed to be lame. The plaintiff, imagining it might have arisen from 
cracked heels, washed them, and some medicine was given to her. He 
did not use her until the Wednesday week following, when he had 
occasion to go to Bury Market. He drove her to Bury and back, and he 
will tell you that when he commenced his journey she was lame, but that 
the lameness went off. That was on the 12th of August. On the follow¬ 
ing morning she was led out of the stable, and she was found to be 
“groggened.” On the 14th of August the plaintiff wrote to the defen¬ 
dant as follows: 
“Brandon, August 14 th. 
“ Sir,—I did not say anything to you about the mare, but found 
she was quite lame on the Monday, from cracked heels as I supposed. I 
put her into a loose box and gave her some medicine ; they are now quite 
well. I rode her to Bury on Wednesday, and on Thursday morning had 
her led out, and find she is quite sore from some cause or other. I call 
her “ groggy.” I am very sorry—as I like her very much to drive, but 
do not like an unsound one, therefore you will oblige by coming on 
Sunday after her, as soon as possible, as I shall not do any more with her. 
I shall be in Norwich to-morrow at Mr. Bayes’, at a quarter past ten. If 
you are there you can speak to me, 
“Yours truly, 
“John Hardy.” 
I believe no notice was taken of that letter, and shortly after Mr. Wal¬ 
pole wrote a letter to the defendant threatening proceedings, unless repa¬ 
ration were made. Now a letter came in reply to that from Dunham, 
who said, if Hardy showed him the letter he sent when he requested 
the warranty, he thought he (Mr. Walpole) would advise him not to pro¬ 
ceed with the action. On the 19th September, notice was served on the 
defendant that she would be sold on the 1st of October, and that he would 
be held liable for any loss that might arise from that sale. She was sold 
by auction on the 1st October at Brandon, for £17 10s., to a person of 
the name of Scott, who sold her to Pearson, and I think Pearson sold her 
to Booty. A few days after she was purchased by plaintiff, I shall show 
that she was examined by a veterinary surgeon, who will tell you that he 
has no doubt whatever, that “ grogginess” was the unsoundness of which 
we complain. He observed that the effect of that “ grogginess ” was a 
contraction in the near fore foot. Mr. Worms, a veterinary surgeon of 
some considerable experience, will, however, tell you that he examined 
her on the 14th, and found that the contraction had been going on for 
some considerable time before the 1st August when we bought her. If 
that be so, I apprehend there can be no question whatever that this mare 
was unsound at the time we bought her, or that she had the seeds of un¬ 
soundness in her, which, would make of course, the defendant liable for 
a breach of warranty. 
His Honour asked how he made out the claim of £26 Is. 6d. 
Mr. Cooper explained that JOs. was charged for expenses in taking it 
from Attleborough to Brandon ; two veterinary surgeons for examining, 
three guineas. Then they had charged for the keep of the mare from the 
time of the purchase to the day of the sale, and the difference between 
the purchase money and the amount for which she sold by auction. In 
answer to Mr. Peeve, he said this action was originally commenced in the 
superior courts, and he believed the defendant appeared to it, but his 
client discontinued paying the costs, as he was alarmed at the number of 
