I Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 537 
proportion as the animal is moved from its natural state and habits." Do 
you agree with that ? — A. Yes. 
Q. " It is comparatively rare where the animal is out at pasture during 
almost the whole of the year, browsing at its leisure, but it is most prevalent 
where an artificial mode of feeding prevails." Do }"ou agree with that ? 
—A. No. 
Q. " Trefoil, or Lucerne, or turnips, or even aftennath freshly cut for the 
stable, or eaten in the field, are the most frequent causes of hoven." Do you 
agree with that ? — A. Yes. 
Q. Do you also agree with this — " that raw potatoes and unbruised oats, or 
nats without chaff, may produce it?" — A. I believe potatoes may, but I do 
not think the others would. 
Q. Well, I will give you raw potatoes? — A. Yes, they may do it if the 
animals were not used to them. 
Q. Accordiog to the generally-accepted notion in the veterinary profession, 
is not hoven generally attributable to change of food ? Do not take the case 
of numbers, but answer me the question without resjiect to whether it be one 
or whether it be a dozen ? — Yes. 
Q. Is not hoven, as a rule, generally attributable to change of food? — 
.!. It is. 
Q. Yon have heard that the cases which were the worst cases were those 
where 7 lbs. had been given. I mean of those that were not fatal ? — A. Yes. 
Q. Did you also hear that there were cases on another farm where 4 lbs. 
had been given and there were symptoms of attack, but where, without giving 
any medicine, the cattle got well in a few hours, and were able to feed again 
; that night ? — A. I did. 
Q. Did you also hear that there was a third farm, where the cattle only got 
3 lbs., and showed no evil consequences? — A. I did not. 
Q. Assume that to be the fact, that some cattle got 7 lbs. of this cake and 
showed bad symptoms ; some got 4, and, without treatment, recovered in the 
course of some hours without any oil or any medicine, and that others who 
got 3 lbs. showed no evil effects at all — Would you attach any value to that, 
as the question of whether or not the amount of food given to the cattle, after 
being without cake for some days, may have accounted for some of those 
symptoms? — A. I should have accounted for it by their getting some foreign 
matter amongst the cake, and by their getting the larger quantity instead of 
the smaller. 
Q. Did you ever see the contents of the stomach again ? — A. No. 
Q. There are four stomachs, are not there ? — A. Yes. 
Q. The rumen, the reticulum, the omasum, and the abomasum? — A. Yes. 
Q. And I presume you sent all? — A. I sent all the intestines altogether. 
Q. And their contents ? — A. Yes. 
Q. Does anything taken by a cow get absorbed into the system before it 
reaches the fourth stomach ? — A. Yes 
Q. From what stomach do you say? — A. It will get absorbed in from the- 
rumen. 
Q. If there was poison in the rumen — supposing it — would you expect to 
find some traces of it in the contents of the rumen ? — A. Well, I do not know 
about that. 
Q. I am asking you now what you should expect. Supposing an animal to 
have taken poison and die in three-quarters of an hour, would you expect to 
find some trace of it in the contents of the rumen ? — A. I should fancy so. 
Q. You did not examine the contents of the mucous lining of the fourth 
Btomach ? — A. I did not open any of the stomachs at all ? 
