cows POISONED IN PASTUPtE. 603 



the defendant, that the plaintiff's cow was not killed by the defendant's 

 cow, but that after being so hurt it was killed by a butcher. Gok-ridtje J. 

 declined to receive such evidence as to the killing by the butcher, as the 

 contrary was admitted by the defendant's plea. Where the declaration 

 stated that the defendant struck the plaintiff's cow divers blows, by 

 reason whereof she died, and it appeared that the defendant having 

 beaten the plaintiff's cow unmercifully, the plaintiff mercifully put it to 

 death, it was objected for the defendant that this was a variance, as the 

 animal might not have died from the defendant's blows ; but the Court 

 considered that the objection was cured by the verdict, and refused a 

 rule to enter a nonsuit {Hancock v. Southall). 



In the case of Golam v. Hall (6 L. R. Q. B. 206), the respondent was 

 huntsman of the Old Berkeley Hunt at Chorley Wood, and, on the 19th 

 ]\Iarch, 1870, a horse was sent there to be slaughtered for the hounds ; 

 the horse, however, was not immediately slaughtered, but was lent to 

 another person for the purpose of being worked, and was, in fact, put 

 to work. It was held that the respondent w^as guilty of an offence under 

 sect. 9 of the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, which imposes a penalty on any 

 person who, having the management of any place for the purpose of 

 slaughtering horses or other cattle not intended for butcher's meat, shall 

 use or permit to be used any horse or cattle brought to such place for 

 the purpose of being slaughtered. 



The case of coivs leing j)oisoned m their pasture was the subject of 

 Lathhury v. Earle. The plaintiff was a large dairy farmer at Stratton, 

 and the defendant a railway contractor, who was engaged in making 

 a railway through the plaintiff's farm. The wood for the line was 

 pickled with creosote and oil of tar, and the defendant had a tank for 

 this purpose near the plaintiff's farm. When the pathway was laid 

 down, the stuff in the tank was pumped out into a culvert, which passed 

 under the canal and to a watercourse going through the plaintiff's field 

 where the cattle were watered. This was in the autumn of 1852, and 

 in April 1853, when the cattle were turned out, their mouths in five 

 days became burnt and black, and their hocks affected. On a request 

 being made, the defendant cleaned out the watercourse, the length of 

 the plaintiff's field, but not the culvert under the canal, and promised 

 compensation, and plaintiff put the cows into a field he had saved for 

 mowing. At the end of a raoTLth the cows were put back, but did not 

 recover till after calving, T: ey fell off so much in their milk that the 

 deficiency was calculated ?t 7000 quarts at Id. per gallon, for the first 

 three months, the loss being £182 odd, as they ought to have o-iven 

 during May, June, and July 16 quarts a-day, and for the next four 

 months £204, calculating the milk at 10 quarts a-day. Besides this. 



