672 Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
and 6 lbs. in the other, and lbs. in the other, was enough to 
account for the animals being unwell, although there was nothing 
deleterious in the cake at all. Well, the answer to that, and 
the strongest thing which struck me as against that, is that the 
animals all became disordered from this ; and certainly the evi- 
dence does not seem to show that 7 lbs. was a very large dose to 
give, and Mr. Wells's men, men of experience, and who were in 
the habit of giving it, evidently did not think it was a very large 
dose. That is one of the matters for you to consider. 
Well, there is another thing that will bear upon this part of 
the case. I mean whether the animals actually died from some- 
thing deleterious in the cake ; whether in this parcel of two tons 
there may have been something got in which would not get into 
the others ; something accidental, such as a poison. Upon that 
you will observe that the Plaintiffs got the eight tons of cake, 
and they gave it to the cowkeepers, and no harm came from it ; 
and the other five tons were eaten by the cattle — it is true it was 
in small quantities — without anything wrong happening, or the 
cattle suffering in any way. Another portion of five tons was 
given to the sheep, and the sheep seem to have indicated, by 
taking a portion of it into their mouths and then spitting it out, 
that there was some taste which they did not like in it. Further 
than that they do not go ; and afterwards, vvhen it was mixed 
with chopped matter, they ate it and were no worse. That goes 
far to show that neither these eight tons of cake nor the other 
five contained much that was poisonous ; they might have con- 
tained something wrong, but certainly it would show that they 
were not deleterious in themselves. It would tend very much to 
show that. Then, further, we find that there has been a great 
deal of this kind of cake distributed ; and it does not appear that 
anybody has said that they found anything wrong, or complained 
of it. And, further, it would show that the stuff which Mr. 
Kidd manufactured was not generally injurious to cattle, nor 
contained deleterious matters. That in this particular case 
Mr. Wells iowa^c^e believed that these symptoms resulted from it, 
and so reported to the Society, is clear enough ; and if all that you 
think would be understood in reading the libel over with regard 
to that was that this was a dirty, bad specimen of cake, and that 
immediately after it was administered there were these symptoms, 
that would be true. If you think it would be understood from it 
also — "Here was a dirty, bad specimen of seed, 'and we wish 
you to draw the inference that it actually did occasion cattle to 
be ill and one of them to die," why, then, that is proved or not 
proved according as you think it is really made out. 
That is the first part ; and then there comes the second part, in 
which I think there can be no doubt how far the libel goes. 
