422 Veterinary Medicine. 



served to give a wide acceptance to the most irrational methods 

 of treatment, which have not in any sense hastened the recovery. 



As soon as active inflammation and hyperthermia subside, 

 every attention should be given to prevent a relapse, and to this 

 end all the measures mentioned under prevention and which can 

 be applied to the individual case should be adopted. Among 

 these, moderate exercise or regular work must never be omitted. 



A course of tonics embracing preparations of iron and bitters, 

 is equally essential, and may be begun as soon as fever and 

 active inflammation subside. 



Special lesions, like corneal opacities and ulcers, must be 

 treated as in other affections. 



Jurisprudence. The question of the right to return upon 

 the seller a horse attacked with recurrent ophthalmia has been 

 beset with difficulty, mainly because of the intermissions during 

 which, to the ordinary observer, the eyes may appear sound. 

 In France a period of thirty days is allowed in which to return 

 such a horse after purchase. This is, however, too narrow a 

 margin as the second attack may not appear until after two, four 

 or six months. It does, however, provide for the return of the 

 worst cases in which the recurrence is likely to take place at an 

 early date. Another provision is that a suspected horse may be 

 put in pound under veterinary observation for thirty days, in 

 anticipation of a second attack, and if such fails to appear the 

 purchaser is debarred from returning him. 



In many cases the symptoms during an attack and between at- 

 tacks are such as to identify the recurrent inflammation, and the 

 expert can pronounce positively as to the nature of the malady. 

 In other cases there is a degree of uncertainty, and the animal 

 must either be returned on the general plea of diseased eyes, if 

 they can be shown to have been faulty at the time of sale, or 

 otherwise the horse must be put in the hands of a veterinarian 

 and the seller notified of the action, until it can be shown whether 

 it is the recurrent disease or not. If it can be shown that the 

 disease is the recurrent affection the seller is responsible at com- 

 mon law for selling a diseased animal for a sound one. If on 

 the other hand, it is a non-specific ophthalmia, it must be shown 

 that it existed prior to sale, and that a warranty of soundness 

 was given, in order to hold the seller responsible. 



