Saturday 04 Sep 1819 (p. 1, col. 5-6 and p. 4, col. 1-6) CARLISLE ASSIZES, 1819. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. [continued] ANOTHER HORSE CAUSE. DRAPE v. HAYTON.—The plaintiff is a surgeon, residing at Blitterlees, in the Abbey Holme, and the defendant a farmer at Silly-Wreay, near Wigton. The action was brought to recover £26, the price of a mare, which HAYTON had sold to Mr. DRAPE at Rosley Hill fair, on the 14th of June last. Mr. RAINE stated that the defendant is in the habit of "making up" horses for sale, and had sold some remarkably well that came out of STAMPER's mare, got by the famous horse Pipator. But the mare which he had sold to Mr. DRAPE, though he said she was of this fine breed, was in reality got by ROUTLEDGE's horse, a common country stallion, out of STUDHOLME's mare, a breed fit for nothing but dung carts. For this distinguished animal, the plaintiff paid £26 at Rosley Hill fair; but he almost instantly found out her worthlessness, and returned her in two days. The defendant refused to take her back, beat her out of his yard with a pitch-fork, and afterwards tied her to a coal cart, going towards plaintiff's residence, from which she escaped, and got astray into a pinfold. The Bailiff, not liking the appearance of the mare, notwithstanding she was of such famous descent, unceremoniously turned her out: she then took refuge in the stable of a neighbouring inn, where she had remained on board-wages ever since. Mr. William WOOD, of the Globe inn, Cockermouth, John ROPER, Richard Wills GLAISTER, Thomas WILKINSON, William SKELTON, Thomas BARNES, (the last two are farriers) John TODD, ——— HARRISON, Robert RUSSELL, John SMITH, Thomas DAVIDSON, a farrier, severally gave evidence; some to the warranty of soundness, and others to prove the mare's lameness. It appeared clearly that the defendant warranted the mare to be right and sound; and on his being informed that she was lame, he said she was sound in every respect, or he would forfeit £500. John ROPER stated that when the mare was bought, the person who showed her, rode only a few yards, and made her jump about in such positions, that one could not tell whether she was lame or not. Much professional acumen was called forth. Thomas WILSON, is a veterinary surgeon, in Carlisle, and received his education in Mr. FIELD's hospital, in Oxford-street, London. Saw the mare both walk and trot (as lately as Friday last) at Red Dial—she is lame in the near fore-foot, of a complicated disease, namely, a contraction of the foot, and ossification of the cartilages of the coronet, and a derangement of the parts within the horny cavity. In his judgment, the disease did not appear to be recent; he thinks, from the non-elasticity of the cartilages, she must have laboured under it a long time—at least three months,—but he believes it to be a "process naturæ." Cross-examined by Mr. LITTLEDALE, Mr. WILSON said this affection of the foot is a radical unsoundness, producing a permanent lameness. The mare appears not to have been much abused, which makes him believe the disorder to be a "process naturæ." This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. LITTLEDALE addressed the jury in behalf of the defendant. The question for them to decide would be, not whether the action of the mare was good or bad, as he would admit that she had rather an aukward gait, but whether she was sound or unsound at the time of sale? The defendant had offered her to Mr. WOOD, whom he well knew a good judge of horses, and, no doubt, would have warranted her sound if sold to him, therefore he must be acquitted, in the minds of the jury, whatever else they might think, of selling her knowing her to be unsound. He could prove, that the mother, the grand-mother, and even the great-grandmother, had the same kind of gait; and if all the family had this gait, how could it be called unsoundness? William GRAHAM, a blacksmith, of Wigton, has been accustomed to horses for 20 years. He saw the mare the day she was bought—she certainly did not move her feet as she ought to have done, but, in his judgment, she was not lame. Thomas WALKER, farrier, of Penrith, had been in the habit of buying horses for Mr. HARRIS, the government contractor, who supplied three parts of the British army. He saw the mare on Feb. 20th, when he declined buying her on account of the price, but did not consider her lame. He saw her again on Sunday last, and even then did not think her lame; he admitted, however, that she had the worst action he ever saw—he could see no ossification. George KILBURN, horse-dealer of Bishop Auckland, said the mare moved her fore feet low and slow, but was not lame—he does not understand a contracted foot. Mr. LITTLEDALE.—Do you not know when a horse has one? Yes, I can see when a horse has a foot. Mr. LITTLEDALE.—Astonishing! Robert M'ILNAY, farrier of Carlisle, said that he had been bred to the business, and had followed it 40 years, as had his father before him. He saw the mare at Red Dial, where she walked and trotted. She had bad action, but cannot say she was lame—she had two capital feet. If any person says there is a contraction there, he deems that person no judge of a horse's foot. He saw no ossification, and considers the mare particularly sound. Is in the habit of buying many horses for proprietors of coaches and dealers, and thinks himself an excellent judge. Mr. RAINE.—A very pretty eulogium on yourself, certainly! Can you tell me what an ossification is? Witness.—We consider it an inflammation in the foot. Mr. RAINE.—Is an ossification preceded by a fever? Witness.—An ossification brings on a fever. Mr. RAINE.—What, then an ossification is a fever, is it? Witness.—We have known it to be that. Mr. RAINE.—Oh, very good,—now you may go down, Mr. Ossification. * John HEWITSON, formerly a blacksmith, but now an innkeeper in Caldewgate, went to see the mare at Red Dial on Sunday last, in company with the last witness. Knows what a contracted foot is a little—this mare's is not one—and, in his judgment, she is sound. Mr. RAINE.—What! you went on Sunday did you? Yes. Mr. RAINE. And you went with Ossification. Are not HAYTON's witnesses at your house?—Some of them are. Thomas DAVIDSON, a farmer at Stoneraise, and Geo. CAPSTICK, a cattle-dealer, said that the action of the mare is bad, but, in their opinion, she is sound. William FERGUSON was lately a servant with the defendant. He knew the mare ever since she was a foal: she was employed in husbandry, and did her work well, but was a bad walker, as was her mother before her; both had the same action and gait. Joseph IRVING, John BELL, Christopher ARMSTRONG, servants in succession with the defendant, deposed to the same effect as the last witness. Edward BELL, a horse-breaker, shewed the mare at the fair, and thinks she was sound. There are not many horses in the country that can beat her at trotting, but she is the worst walker ever mounted. He offered to buy her himself as a sound mare. Seven other witnesses gave testimony to the same purport: all spoke of the mare's bad gait, but believed her to be sound. Mr. RAINE went through the evidence, and amused the court very highly with his comments upon ossification. The judge summed up with his usual perspicuity, and the jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, £26; Costs, 40s. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [to be continued]