230 INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



here be given at considerable length. The following is 

 compressed from an exact copy of the shorthand notes 

 which were taken at the trial, and afterwards published in 

 the Veterinarian. It was an action brought against the de- 

 fendant, a Farrier, for unskilfulness in the shoeing of two 

 Horses, sent by the plaintiff to be shod at the defendant's 

 forge, which he carried on for the purpose of shoeing 

 Horses with a shoe for which he had a patent. 



The one, a grey mare Pony, was sent on the 16th of 

 July, in the evening after working hours, and was shod 

 at the particular request of the plaintiff's father. On 

 the 17th she was driven with two men in a gig to Bar- 

 net, and it was admitted that for three miles she had 

 gone sound. On the 20th the shoes were taken off by 

 the apprentice of Beck, another Farrier. On the 21st the 

 defendant received notice of her lameness, and on the 26th, 

 after her feet had been cut about and poulticed, she was 

 reshod by Beck and afterwards worked. It appeared that 

 subsequently she had been tm-ned out for nine weeks. 



The other, a black entii-e Pony, was sent to be shod on 

 the 18th July. On the 21st the shoes were taken off by 

 Beck, and blood was said to have followed the withdrawal 

 of two of the nails. It Avas admitted that this Pony's feet 

 were very thin and bad, and his action very high. What 

 was done to this Pony did not appear ; but he had been 

 under the care of Mr. Field the Veterinary Surgeon, and 

 was afterwards sold for a small simi at Aldridge's Reposi- 

 tory some time in October. 



At the trial no Veterinary Surgeons were called to give 

 any information as to the nature of the injmy or of the 

 parts in]\u-ed. And the allegation that the patent shoe 

 was one likely to produce lameness by its apj)lioation, was 

 withdi-awn by the plaintiff's counsel. 



The defendant's case rested on two grounds ; First, That 

 even supposing the Ponies to have been lamed in shoeing, 

 he Avas not liable because he had brought to the perform- 

 ance of that duty competent skill and reasonable care, and 

 that the plaintiff knowingly brought them to have the 

 patent shoe applied. Secondly, That one Pony was lame 

 before it was shod, and the other had not been lamed by 

 the shoeing, but the lameness had arisen fi'om other causes. 

 Rule as to In summing up Chief Baron Pollock said to the Jury : 



Tamers. u rpj^^ ^^^^y -j^^^Iq gf j^r^^ fj^at I feel it necessary to lay 



doAvn upon the subject in this case is, that if this operation 

 has been performed unskilfidly and improperly, no doubt 



