VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
51 
and had done so for three years, so that the other cabmen might not com- 
plain. The horse was then slaughtered. Afterwards witness saw Wild, 
and told him there was no doubt it was a case of glanders. He replied that 
he had done all he could, and that lie had carried a pail for three years. 
Mr. Arthur Cherry , a veterinary surgeon, said he examined the horse at 
Paragon Mews, and found it suffering from chronic glanders. The fact 
would be palpable to any one who had the slightest knowledge of horses. 
The nostrils were ulcerated, and the discharge was a sign of extensive dis- 
ease. Burd told him he had had the horse between two and three years, 
and that when he bought it, it was suffering from cc nasal gleet.” That phrase 
was only used as an evasion of the term glanders. He subsequently made 
a 'post-mortem examination, and found the glands much enlarged, and the 
lungs much diseased. It was a clear case of chronic glanders, and the dis- 
ease had existed for two or three years. The state of the animal would have 
been perfectly plain to any person of ordinary intelligence. 
Eor the defence it was urged that the proprietor Burd exercised the 
greatest care with his horses, and that his stables were the cleanest and 
healthiest in the mews. 
The Lord Mayor said the case admitted of no doubt. It had been clearly 
proved that the horse was badly glandered, and that both the defendants 
must have been aware of it. They had not taken reasonable care in the 
matter, and they had been guilty of a grave offence against the community 
at large. He hoped the prosecution in this instance would act as a warning 
to other people, as they would certainly be punished if they came before a 
magistrate. He held that the owner, Burd, was principally to blame, and he 
fined him £5, with the alternative of fourteen days’ imprisonment. The 
other defendant would be fined 10s. Both defendants paid the fine, and 
were, discharged. — Times. 
On the same day, at Clerkenwell Police Court, Mr. Joseph Good , 
a carrier, of Tottenham, was summoned before Mr. Barker to answer a com- 
plaint which charged him with conveying a glandered horse through the 
public streets. 
Mr. Charles Fry, solicitor, prosecuted. 
Mr. Allen , M.R.C.Y.S., said that on the 24th of September last, he was 
passing along the Seven Sisters’ Hoad, Holloway, when he saw the defend- 
ant leading a horse which appeared to him to be glandered. Shortly after- 
wards he traced the horse to Atcheler’s yard, where he found it dead. Mr. 
Hunt, the inspector of slaughtered horses, saw it at Atcheler’s, and told the 
defendant it was glandered, and that he must have it destroyed at once ; and, 
when asked why he had led it through the public streets, when he could 
have sold it to a horse slaughterer, at Tottenham, where he resided, he said 
he had brought it to town because he could get a better price for it than 
he could there. 
Mr. Barker said it appeared these cases were on the increase. 
Mr. Allen said it was so, and in this case if the horse that the defendant 
had led had come into contact with any other, it would have infected it with 
disease. 
The defendant said that he was very sorry, but he was not aware that 
there w'as anything the matter with the horse, except that he was old, 'lame, 
and worn out. 
Mr. Barker said that a stop must be put to such a dangerous practice, 
and ordered the defendant to pay a fine of £10, and 2s. costs, or, in default, 
to be imprisoned in the House of Correction for two calendar months. 
