The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-07 00:00:00

MORSE AND WIFE V. HAIG.

This was an action brought by a gentleman of proper-
ty, living at Drayton, in the neighbourhood of Ealing,
to recover damages for slander alleged to have been ut-
tered by the defendant, who had married the widow of
the late Mr. Ducrow, and who lived near the plaintiff,
respecting Mrs. Morse.

The slanderous words imputed to the plaintiff were of
a very indecent character, and the details of the case
were altogether unfit for publication.

It resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
500/.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
HOPKINS V. TANQUERAY.-A HORSE CASE.

This was an action to recover damages from the de-
fendant upon the ground that he had sold a horse to the
plaintiff upon a warranty of soundness, which had sub-
sequently turned out to be unsound.

Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Hawkins appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr.
Lush for the defendant.-

The facts of the case are shortly these. The plaintiff
is a stock broker, residing at Balham-hill, and the de-
fendant is a merchant in Lime-street, and both gentle-
men are in the habit of following the hounds. In the
early part of last year the defendant was about to sell
some of his horses by auction, and whilst he and the
plaintiff were dining together at the Parthenon Club
the intended sale was spoken of, and one of the horses
in particular, California, was mentioned. The plaintiff's
account was, that if he had not already bought so many
horses he should like to buy California, and he asked if
he was sound. The defendant said he was perfectly
sound. The sale was to take place on Monday, the 30th
of May, and on the Sunday afternoon preceding, the
plaintiff went to Tattersall's to look at the horses, and
he remarked that California was the only one that would
carry him over the vale of Aylesbury. The plaintiff
was then going to look at him, when the defendant said
" You have nothing to look for ; I assure you he is per-
fectly sound in every part," and the plaintiff replied,
"If you say so I am satisfied." The defendant, in his
evidence, denied that any allusion had been made at the
Parthenon to the soundness of the horse, and as to
what took place at Tattersall's his version of it was this.
The plaintiff came up to him and said, " I have been
looking at your horses, and I have not seen a nicer lot
together for some time," and he also said he
should like to buy California, and asked if he was
sound. The defendant replied, " Yes ; to the best of
my knowledge he is perfectly sound ; he has not shown
any symptom of unsoundness since I have had him."
Afterwards lie went into the stable and saw the plaintiff
upon his knees examining the horse, and he said, "Halloo,
you are trying to find out the screws ; you will find it all
right." The plaintiff bought the horse for 2941., and
subsequently there was a conversation between the par-
ties at dinner, and the defendant offered to back Califor-
nia against any horse in the plaintiff's stables, and the
plaintiff backed the Farmer's Friend against for him for
501. half forfeit. As part of the arrangement, California
was sent to Mr. Baker to train, and he found that the
horse was unsound in the near fetlock joint, through a
disease of the suspensory ligament. The plaintiff and
defendant agreed to refer the matter to Mr. Allnutt, and
he gave his opinion in favour of the plaintiff; but his
award was by consent withdrawn, and another reference
was made to Messrs. Mortimer, Hall, and the Hon. Mr,
Grimstone ; but they differed upon a point of law, and
made no award. California was sold afterwards for 144
guineas, and the present action was brought to recover
the difference between that sum and the 2941. which the
plaintiff had given for him. It was not imputed to the
defendant that he had made any wilful misrepresentation
as to the soundness of the horse, and as to what took
place as to the soundness, it was admitted that each gen-
tleman was desirous of giving the correct version of it,
the only question being which was the most accurate in
his recollection. As to the unsoundness, evidence was
given for the plaintiff that California was unsound at
the time of the sale ; whilst on the other side the evi-
dence was that he was sound then and was sound now.
In this conflict of evidence it was proposed by counsel
that the horse should be fetched up from Northampton-
shire, and that the foreman of the jury should ride him ;
but the jury intimated that they were not desirous of
seeing the animal, and so the trial went on.

Hi; lordship left it to the jury to say—lst, Whether a
contract of warranty was embodied in the contract of
sale of the horse ; and, secondly, whether at the time of
the sale the horse was afflicted with unsoundness. In
the course of the case a question was raised whether, in
any view of the case, what was said amounted to a
warranty, the sale having been by auction, and nothing
having been said by the auctioneer about a warranty, and
this point was reserved for the consideration of the court.
The jury found for the plaintiff upon both questions—
damages, 1421. 16s.