Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of Eiigland. 671 
thoy do not always use the same terms when they agree, but they 
agree — that it was caused by something which the cattle took at 
the time which injured the working of the stomach — that which 
is known as the chewing of the cud — the rumen of the animals ; 
and the consequence was that the food that was in the rumen, 
when it was no longer checked by the natural healthy working 
of the rumen, fermented and produced a great quantity of gas, 
and the distending gas " hove " the beasts, as they call it, and 
made them ill ; and, in that particular case of the cow, the 
hoven " went so far as not to produce absolute suffocation, but 
pressure on the lungs so as to produce death, not from suffocation, 
but from want of being able to breathe enough to keep the animal 
alive. That is what they say, and 1 think the Veterinary Sur- 
geons on both sides agree that it was clear enough that there was 
something which they took which disagreed with the animals 
and produced that effect. 
But then comes this : the Defendant says (and you will have 
to consider that) that 7 lbs. of linseed-cake, although the animals 
had been fasting from linseed in the one case for ten days, would 
not be sufficient, if it was good cake, to disorder the stomach so 
as to produce this illness ; and, consequently, as all these animals 
took it, it must have been a thing which would make animals 
generally feel ill by taking it. He says in this particular parcel 
of cake there must have been something injurious and dele- 
terious ; and if he is bound to carry his justification so far as to 
say that the animal died of it, upon that he rests. On the other 
hand comes this consideration, which is strong against him — - 
although they have had the cake, and the Royal Agricultural 
Society's Chemists have had the means of getting everybody they 
could to look at it, they do not find anything they are able to 
trace as being absolutely poisonous ; they do not find anything 
deleterious. But then they say, and they say truly, that chemical 
tests do not enable you to detect vegetable poisons very well. 
Still, if there was something that crept in or got into the cake 
that was absolutely deleterious, one would naturally expect that , 
the Defendants would have been able to give some evidence to 
show the poison that was in it : and that is a thing which you 
must bear in mind, and give it its weight. 
Then, the Plaintiff's Veterinary Surgeons, besides, rely upon 
that, saying, " we are confident that there was sufficient cause, sup- 
posing it was ever such good cake ; for, if you give animals cake 
Avhen they are feeding upon other things, if you give them a 
change of food and cake, if they gorge it or eat it rapidly, or, 
even without that, the mere change from what they have been 
used to, may disorder their stomachs and cause them to be ill ; " 
and they say, therefore, that the giving of 7 lbs. in the one case, 
