VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
417 
which they had owned him, and that, therefore, he must have 
been unsound at the time of the sale. Upon the other hand, it is 
claimed that there was no evidence of unsoundness at the time of 
the sale, and that an injury of that character might arise within 
the period of their ownership, and from various causes. It is for 
you to say which, upon the testimony, you are led to believe. If 
the horse was unsound at the time of the sale, and the burden is 
upon the defendants to prove that he was, and there was a war¬ 
ranty, then the defendants are entitled to a reduction of the pur¬ 
chase money. If there was no warranty, or if from the testimony 
you are led to believe that the horse was sound at the time of the 
sale, and that this injury or defect came upon him after the sale, 
then, in either of these events, the defendants would not be en¬ 
titled to any reduction, but the plaintiff would be entitled to re¬ 
cover the full amount of his note. These are the two questions 
of fact which you are to pass upon and settle. If you find that 
there was a warranty and the horse was unsound at the time of 
the sale, then the defendants are entitled to have this note which 
they have given as part payment for the horse reduced by the 
amount which they have suffered by reason of that particular un¬ 
soundness. That is to say, the measure of damages in the case of 
a breach of warranty would be the difference in the value of that 
horse on account of that unsoundness. How much would that 
defect depreciate the value of the horse ? How much have they 
suffered on account of that warranty not being true ? As the 
plaintiffs counsel has stated, I have heard no testimony in this 
case that shows in. dollars and cents how much that would be. 
Witnesses have testified that it would depreciate the value of the 
horse ; to what extent has not been shown; and, therefore, it is 
for the jury to determine upon the testimony that they have 
heard, considering the price of the horse, its value, as stated upon 
the one side and the other; the nature and extent of the lame¬ 
ness, and the nature and extent of the injury, the time of its con¬ 
tinuation, how far it would interfere with the beneficial use of the 
property by the defendants, and such circumstances as those. 
Taking all these things into consideration, it is for you to say if 
you find there was a warranty and a breach of it, how much that 
