We may conveniently sum up this brief enumeration of ailments amounting to unsoundness and returnable vices with the definition laid down in Elton v. Brogden (4 Camp. 281): "If at the time of sale the horse has any disease which either actually does diminish the natural usefulness of the animal, so as to make him less capable of work of any description, or which in its ordinary progress will diminish the natural usefulness of the animal, this is unsoundness; or if the horse has, either from disease or accident, undergone any alteration of structure that either actually does at the time, or in its ordinary effects will diminish the natural usefulness of a horse, such a horse is unsound".

It should also be borne in mind that ailments to amount to unsoundness need not be permanent or incurable. It is sufficient if the horse is affected by such ailment at the time of sale; or even, according to the decision in the leading case of Margetson v. Wright, to which we have already had occasion to refer, if the horse has the seeds of unsoundness in him at the time of sale. Even if a horse which was unsound at the time of sale, recovers before action is brought, this is no defence to such action.

We may conveniently close this chapter with a few remarks as to the proper course to be adopted where a horse is believed not to answer to its warranty.

If there can be no mistake about its unsoundness, and that such unsoundness existed at the time of sale, it should be at once returned, with a letter demanding back the purchase - money. It is, however, always desirable to obtain independent veterinary testimony, written if possible, or the opinion of an expert, previous to returning the horse. Such return should also be accompanied by a copy of the veterinary surgeon's report, or the expert's opinion. If the seller refuses to take the horse back, it may be sold, and he may be sued for any deficiency between the price realized at such sale and the price originally paid for it, together with any expenses to which the buyer may have been thereby put. Of course, there must be no unnecessary delay in returning the animal, as the law does not aid those who sleep upon their rights.

No definite time is fixed by law for the return, and each case must be governed more or less by its own peculiar incidents; but generally, in the absence of any stated time, as where the horse has not been sold subject to the rules obtaining at some fair or repository for the sale of horses, eight days inclusive may be taken to be a reasonable limit.

If the horse is very valuable, legal aid should be sought, and action will then be taken in one of the superior courts, but many cases of warranty will naturally come within the jurisdiction of the county courts, and in that case the plaintiff may desire to conduct his own case. In this latter event he can obtain all necessary information respecting the usual formalities from the officials of the court belonging to the district in which he lives. A few suggestions, however, will not be out of place. All original letters or documents should be carefully preserved, together with the warranty, if written. He should also write out a detailed statement of his claim, of which he should make three copies, one for his own use, one for service on the defendant, and the third to be attached to the plaint note. He should also serve a notice upon the defendant to produce all letters and documents bearing upon the case. The plaintiff should then consider what witnesses he requires to prove his case, and if he has reason to think that any of them will not come willingly, he should subpoena them. His statement in court should be a plain and unvarnished setting - out of the facts, chronologically arranged, up to the discovery and proof of breach of warranty. The defence set up may be a direct denial of the allegations of the plaintiff, or that such alleged breach is the plaintiff's own fault.

If the warranty is in writing, the case will, of course, be much simplified, as the court will be in possession of the exact terms. If the warranty is not in writing, the plaintiff should be careful to give the exact terms of the warranty, since, as already stated, there are many representations which do not amount to, or constitute part of, a warranty.

A written certificate of soundness or unsoundness, it is to be observed, is only of use in court for the purpose of correcting evidence, and the person giving such certificate should be in court, so that the party to whom such certificate is adverse may have an opportunity of cross-examining him. A written warranty, as already stated, need not be stamped. Whether, however, a horse is to be sold with a warranty or not, the intending purchaser should be careful to overhaul him before a bargain is struck, as, where there is full power of inspection, the maxim caveat emptor, "at purchaser's risk", will apply, where there is a warranty in respect of patent defects, and where there is no warranty, unconditionally.