Mayer

The plaintiff and defendant exchanged horses, and this action was brought to recover damages for the false and fraudulent representations, alleged to have been made by the defendant, as to the soundness of his horse, whereby the plaintiff was induced to make the exchange.

The court below gave judgment for the plaintiff, from, which, and from an order denying a new trial, the defendant appeals.

The court, after finding that the horse of the defendant was unsound at the time of the exchange, further found as follows:—

It is claimed for the appellant that these findings were not justified by the evidence, because there was no sufficient proof that he knew his horse was unsound at the time of the trade; and it is said that in such an *648 action it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove, “not only the falsity of the representations in point of fact, hut that the defendant, at the time the representations were made, had knowledge of their falsity, or made them without reasonable grounds for believing their truth.” The testimony was conflicting upon most of the issues raised, but it was proved for the plaintiff that the horse was spavined and unsound. Dr. Jacobson, a veterinary…