ACTIONS AT LAW. 223 



Stephens saw it again, he himself pronounced it to be a 

 roarer. On the i8th of April it was examined by Mr. 

 Olver, veterinary surgeon, who certified, " I find he is a 

 roarer, and does not flex his hocks properly ; consequently 

 unsound." Mr. Olver would also state that he never saw 

 a worse roarer in his Hfe, and that the horse must have been 

 a roarer when examined by Mr. Stephens on the 31st of 

 March. 



His Honour : You must prove to me that there was such 

 gross negligence on Mr. Stephen's part that any man hold- 

 ing himself out as an instructed and educated veterinary 

 surgeon ought to have seen it and discovered it. But the 

 mere fact that roaring which existed on a particular day, 

 was certified not to have existed on another day, and 

 then seems to have been reproduced, would not make me 

 come to that conclusion. 



Mr. Dale : But he undertakes to exercise a reasonable 

 degree of skill and care. 



His Honour : But you must show there was such negh- 

 gence that no properly educated veterinary surgeon ought 

 to have overlooked the unsoundness. 



Mr. Dale said the question would arise as to what was a 

 reasonable degree of skill and care. He was in a position 

 to prove that the mother of this horse was a roarer. 



His Honour : That is no use. What on earth the use 

 of proving that ? You must prove that on the 19th of 

 March the horse was a roarer. Mr. Stephens examined 

 him on the 31st March, and said he was not a roarer at that 

 time, and you will have to show that on that day the disease 

 was so apparent as to have made it necessary for an 

 ordinarily capable veterinary surgeon to have discovered it. 



Mr. Dale said he should prove that it was apparent to the 

 inexperienced eye of the plaintiff when the horse came into 

 his possession, and in that case it ought to have been 

 apparent to the defendant. 



