VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 565 
witnesses lie had, and the expense attending the trial at the assizes, 
which he very wisely discontinued. 
Plaintiff said on the 1st of August last year he was in Norwich, and 
saw defendant, who had a mare for sale, and which he purchased for £32. 
Mr. Bayes, of Norwich, witnessed the bargain. When trotted out, he 
said to defendant, “ She appears very stiff and sore,” and he replied, “ If 
you buy her you will have her sound ; there is nothing more the matter 
with her than a cracked heel.” He mentioned that more than once. 
When the purchase was effected it was agreed that the mare should be 
sent to Attleborough the following morning, where it was met by 
Rowan, his man. When brought home she was put into his stable, but 
when led out the following morning it was seen that she was very lame— 
indeed so much so, that he ordered her to be led back to the stable, as 
he was afraid she should fall down on her knees. He had her heels 
washed, and some medicine given to her, but she continued lame. He 
first, used her in harness on the 12th of August, when he drove her to and 
from Bury. She went a part of the journey pretty well, but for some 
distance she ran very sore. On the 13th she was as sore as the first day 
he saw her. On the 14th he wrote a letter to Mr. Walpole, requesting him 
to communicate with the defendant. On the 19th he again drove her to 
Bury, and the mare was very sore on starting for home. He caused a 
notice to be served on defendant, stating that the mare would be sold on 
the 1st of October. She was sold to Mr. Scott for £17 lOs. The mare 
was examined by Mr. Leeds, after the first journey to Bury, and by Mr. 
Worm, veterinary surgeon, on the 14th of November. 
Cross-examined.—He wrote to defendant for the warranty, and 
received an answer that the mare was warranted up to the time of 
delivery. He did not find out that the mare was unsound, or had cracked 
heels, when he first drove her. Mr. Leeds certified that the mare was 
suffering from acute fever in the forefoot; he did not know exactly 
what he said. 
Mr. Reeve .—You don’t know what “ groggins ” is ? No, I don’t. 
You know more about grog?—Yes, I know a little about it. 
(Laughter.) 
Defendant admitted there was a warranty. 
Rowan said he rode the mare from Attleborough to Brandon after he 
received it from defendant’s man, and the next morning he found that she 
was lame. 
Cross-examined.—He told his master the same night that there was 
something the matter with the mare’s fore legs. 
White also stated that the horse was lame, and that he treated her for 
cracked heels. 
Mr Leeds said he examined the mare on the 20th August and gave a 
certificate. He observed that the mare was very lame and could scarcely 
stand when led out of the stable. The mare was suffering from acute 
fever in the fore feet. He could not say whether it had existed the day 
before he examined the animal. 
Mr. J. S. Worm , V.S. , of Watton, said he examined the mare on the 
11th of November, and found her lame of the fore feet, and a contraction 
of the near foot. He considered it a case of navicular disease, which had 
existed about six weeks or two months. The near foot must have been 
contracted for six weeks to two months from the state he then saw it. 
He would not say that the contraction had not existed even six or twelve 
months. He thought the navicular inflammation must have existed on 
the 1st of August. It would have taken from two to three months to 
have produced that contraction. 
