638 Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
course Messrs. Roberts and Leak had a perfect rislit to refuse it if they 
chose, but I think, having refused that ofler, it is hopeless for their learned 
Counsel to comj^lain that they had not a fair oj^purtunity of testing^the thing 
by submitting it to any .cent leman they chose; and remember, gentlemen, 
had the result turned out difl'erently, here is a direct offer to give any expla- 
nation, or adopt any course, that might be fair and honourable between the 
parties. Gentlemen, do not you think that justified the yociety and their 
advisers in the course they took ; but it is not all. Later on, on the 6th July, 
application having been made for a sample, there comes this letter : " We 
shall have, as v^e beibre said, samples of the cake in court, properly identified, 
if you now really want us to test Dr. Voelcker's published analysis, or to 
make an independent analysis of your own, we are willing that Dr. Voelcker 
shall meet any chemist j'ou may intend to employ, and make a joint analysis 
for either party to refer to at the trial, if necessary." Again, I say, what could 
have been fairer than that '! Is it not saying, " We have the cake here, appoint 
whom you please.?" It is not a correct inference from that letter that Mr. 
Eoberts, in his subsequent letter, draws that we asked them to be bound by 
that analysis. Nothing of the sort : it refers simply to the avoidance of the 
complication which you get into from people having their analyses made under 
different circumstances, and having to inquire, when you come to the trial, 
into all the various elements of the examination, when made, and so on. To 
avoid all that, we say, "Appoint any gentleman you please of your own; 
let him meet Dr. Voelcker with whatever conditions are necessary in order 
that the analysis may be ascertained to be fair ; let that analysis be made, 
and do what you please with it for the jiurposes of the trial." I am sorry to 
have detained you with that which, after all, does not affect the real question 
at issue, but which might be made use of, if not properly understood, as a 
topic of prejudice when my friend comes to address you on behalf of the 
Plaintiff in this action ; but I think it would be unnecessary for me to 
proceed further upon what I call the preliminary points of the case. 
There were some letters put in by my learned friend at the very last 
moment to-day, and I must presume he put them in with the object of 
commenting upon them. I am perfectly willing, of course, to stand by what 
is said in that letter, which you will remember. " I am much obliged by your 
letter received this morning containing; answers to my queries, and enclosing a 
copy of Mr. Fairley's Report." All this shows that the Council were fairly 
investigating the matter with Mr. Wells ; they were suggesting an inquiry, 
and doing that which it was their duty to do, and which they say they are 
about to do. What was their position V Mr. Wells was the person to whose 
cattle this thing had hai^pencd. The facts of the case are entirely within Mr. 
Wells's knowledge with reference to all that. Mr. Wells w;is the gentleman who 
Lad sent up the animal's viscera to Professor Bimonds, and the cake to Dr. 
Voelcker, lor examination ; and it was acting upon thosa facts as stated to the 
Council, and upon the examinations reported to them, that they published the 
libel which is now complained of. Surely under those circumstances they had 
a perfect right to say to Mr. Wells what they say here. " You jvill observe 
that if neither Mr. Dean's 5 tons, nor the remaining 8 tons in your warehouse, 
should prove injurious to stock, it will give great support to Ayres's assertion 
that it was not the cake, but something else that killed your short-horn cow." 
I am perfectly well prepared. I do not want my learned friend to remind 
me of what he here says. I am perfectly willing to deal with both the 5 tons 
sent to Sancton and the 8 tons we have heard about to-day ; and I am quite 
satisfied that when those matters are properly examined, you will find it gives 
no support whatever, although it is a matter fairly lor you to cotisider, to Mr. 
Ayre's observation that it was not cake but something else that killed the cow. 
Gentlemen, 1 cannot, of course, anticipate what are the observations that my 
