242 DISEASES OF. BONE. 



" Needless to say rigid antisepsis is necessary, but Mr. Mayall's 

 experience shows that conservation of the periosteum is not neces- 

 sary. The majority of my cases went right without any recurrence 

 of the splint, and only a slight cicatrix remaining. Those in 

 which there was any blemish were, I think, due to suturing the 

 skin before bleeding had altogether ceased." 



This operation is very useful for removing a splint which inter- 

 feres with the action of the opposite leg. 



LEGAL ASPECT OF SPLINT.— The large majority of experi- 

 enced veterinary surgeons will agree that a splint which is well 

 away from the knee, and does not interfere with the working of 

 the tendons or ligaments, or with the action of the other leg, is 

 not an unsoundness ; provided that it does not cause lameness, and 

 that the horse is at least six yeais old. The limit of age might in 

 some cases be reduced. If the animal is young, and especially, if 

 he has not done much work, the fact of his having a splint, would 

 indicate that the leg is not of the proper kind to stand a good deal 

 of " knocking about." 



From " Margetson v. Wright " (see Moore and Scott's Cases in 

 Common Pleas, etc., vol. i., p. 622), it appears that a horse with 

 a splint can be passed sound, if the bony deposit, from its size and 

 position, would not be liable to cause lameness ; leaving out of 

 consideration what its results might be, were it to increase in size, 

 or invade other structures. Lord Chief Justice Tindal's judgment 

 on this case was as follows: — "This was an action upon a 

 warranty in which the defendant warranted the horse to be sound 

 in wind and limb ' at the time,' that is, at the time of the 

 warranty made. The jury at the trial found a verdict for the 

 plaintiff ; the learned Judge requesting them to tell him distinctly 

 whether in their judgment the horse was sound ; or, if they 

 believed him to be unsound, whether that unsoundness arose from 

 the splint of which evidence had been given. In answer to which 

 inquiry, the jury said ' that, although the horse exhibited no 

 symptoms of lameness at the time when the contract was made, 

 he had then upon him the seeds of unsoundness arising from 

 the splint.' 



" The question upon this application for a new trial, is, whether 

 this finding of the jury sanctions the verdict for the plaintiff or 

 not ; that is, whether the Court can see with sufficient clearness 

 that the jury thought that the horse was unsound at the time of' 

 the contract, and, consequently, that the warranty was broken. It 

 appears that the evidence before the jury was, in substance, that 

 the splint might or might not be the efficient cause of lameness, 

 according to the position which it occupied, and its size and extent ; 



