368 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
BATH COUNTY COURT, Feb. 28th, 1880. 
Walker v. Snook. 
Before His Honour, Judge Caillard. 
Robert Walker, a farmer, sought to recover from the defendant, George 
Snook , farrier, of Bath, £27 125. 6d. for a breach of warranty of a horse. 
Mr. Bartlett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. C. Benson , of Bristol, 
for the defendant. 
The plaintiff deposed that, on the 10th of January, he was in Bath 
Market, where he saw a brown gelding in the charge of the defendant. 
He asked if it was for sale, and the defendant replied that it was, and he 
wanted £45 for it. Eventually he gave a cheque for £42 for the horse, 
warranted sound. On Monday the 12th, when using the horse for the 
first time after purchase, he did not like its action, and sent it to Mr. 
Broad for his opinion on the following day. 
Mr. Broad stated that he examined the horse on the 13th, and found it 
lame in both fore feet from chronic navicular disease. 
James Morgan , a coachman, said that the horse had belonged to his mis¬ 
tress, and he as her agent sold it on the 22nd Dec. last to the defendant, 
after he had been blistering and treating it for lameness in the feet, for £13, 
out of which he deducted the defendant’s bill for treatment. Witness 
noticed that the horse was lame in May soon after his mistress bought it. 
John White, farrier, stated that he had examined the horse with a view 
to purchase before the defendant bought it, but finding it was lame in 
the feet, would not purchase it. 
Mr. C. W. Gregory, veterinary surgeon of Bristol, said he had examined 
the horse since the Court had been sitting. He found it lame in the fore 
legs, but had not sufficiently examined it to form an opinion as to the 
cause of lameness. He saw nothing about the legs to account for it. 
James Mason Broad , veterinary surgeon of Bristol, said that he had also 
examined the horse since the Court had been sitting, but not with Mr. 
Gregory. Pie found the horse was lame in both fore feet from chronic 
navicular disease; the horse pointed, and it was in other respects a clear 
case of navicular lameness. 
Mr. Benson , on behalf of the defendant, said that the evidence on the 
part of the plaintiff respecting the warranty was so clear that he should 
not attempt to dispute it, although the defendant did not remember 
giving such a warranty. He would, however, call witnesses to prove the 
soundness of the horse. 
Nathaniel Leigh deposed he had practised as a veterinary surgeon at 
Bristol for forty-five years. He examined the horse in question on the 
3rd of February, at Bristol, and found no defect. He trotted it both with 
and without its shoes, and did not discover any lameness whatever. If 
the horse had been suffering from navicular disease it would certainly 
have shown symptoms which he should have noticed. He had not, he said, 
ever seen a sounder horse, and would have bought it. The feet were so 
good looking that they were not likely to be affected with navicular disease. 
William Jermyn, veterinary surgeon of Bristol, said he also examined 
the horse at the Bristol Repository on the 12th of February. Before 
he examined it he made it stand still for several hours, in order that it 
might get stiff and easily show its lameness, if lame it was. It had good 
shaped feet, and such as were not likely to be affected with navicular 
disease. On cross-examination Mr. Jermyn stated that he never saw 
navicular disease in a good shaped foot. 
