188 APPENDIX. 
observation of these and other rules of the same kind prac- 
tically establishes a wide distinction, and one which is easily 
recognized between those who exercise a noble profession 
and those who disgrace it. 
The treatment of a veterinary witness, in passing through 
the ordeal of an examination, will depend very much upon 
the class of counsel who is opposed to him. Assuming that 
he is properly prepared for the discharge of his duties, and 
that the questions put to him are answered fairly and truly, 
according to his knowledge and experience, without exag- 
geration or concealment, he has no reason to fear any 
attempt at intimidation. Barristers, for the most part, know 
that by this line of conduct they lose more with the jury 
than they gain by the attempt to confuse the witness ; and 
as their ultimate and sole object is a favourable verdict, they 
will generally avoid conduct which must necessarily place 
this verdict in jeopardy. 
The normal barrister, as depicted by Mr. Fitzjames 
Stephen, is not at liberty, in his address to the jury, to 
misrepresent, either by distortion or suppression, the medical 
facts or opinions given. in a case. According to my experi- 
ence, however, misrepresentation is a not unfrequent practice, 
and one of which veterinary witnesses have very strong 
reason to complain, Whether such misstatements are wilful 
or not it may be difficult to determine, but their effect on 
the jury is well known to those who employ them ; and they 
frequently escape the observation of the counsel on the other 
side, and even of the learned judge, unless he is well versed 
in veterinary subjects. It is also worthy of remark, that if a 
misstatement is thus made, it is, by a remarkable coincidence, 
always in favour of the view of the counsel who makes it, 
when a proper examination of his notes would, in general, 
show him that he was wrong. 
Then, as to the question of intimidation, this is sometimes 
carried very far. “On your oath, sir, and in the face of the 
