Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
NOTTINGHAM ASSIZES. 
( Before Mr. Justice Hannen.) 
NEWTON V. WARHURST AND ANOTHER. 
This was a special jury case. Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C., and 
Mr. Cave (instructed by Mr. A. Parsons) were for the plaintiff ; 
and Mr. Wills and Mr. Bennett (instructed by Mr. Cranch) for the 
defendants. 
Mr. Seymour said the plaintiff in the action was Mr. John 
Newton, the owner of an extensive farm at Colston Bassett, in this 
county, and the plaintiffs were coal and produce merchants at 
Nottingham and Derby, carrying on a large business in rice meal. 
The action was brought to recover compensation against the defend- 
ants for the loss of three horses, together with expenses attending 
thereon, such loss being attributed to the supply of adulterated and 
impure rice meal by the defendants. The question was therefore 
one of considerable importance, and attended with considerable 
interest to agriculturists. Proceeding to give an outline of the 
case, Mr. Seymour said the defendants’ business in Nottingham 
w r as conducted either by themselves or an assistant, Mr. Pink, 
who represents them in their absence. When the plaintiff gave the 
order for the rice meal, which would form the subject of discussion, 
he had twelve horses, which were in perfect health. The horses 
were kept up and fed with chopped hay, beans, and rice meal. The 
orders were given in June and August. The first order was given 
to Mr. Pink in Nottingham Market, Mr. Newton telling him he 
w r anted some rice meal for his horses. Mr. Pink said that they had 
some excellent rice meal pure and unadulterated. Acting on the 
faith of this representation, that it was pure and fit for food for 
horses, the three orders were given. The first order, consisting of 
twenty packs, was sent and placed in the plaintiff’s granary, and it 
would be impossible to suggest that there was any method by which 
the rice meal was improperly dealt with. The plaintiff had the key 
of the room, and from time to time gave the rice meal out to his 
men. All the twelve animals partook of the meal but one — a brown 
mare, and although she was kept a day without food to give her an 
appetite, still she would not take the rice meal, and the consequence 
was that her health did not suffer. All the other horses, however, 
were more or less ill, and on the 6th December one died, another 
on the loth, and another on the 5th January of the present year. A 
post-mortem examination was made of the horses, and it was found 
that there had been a lodgment of sand in the stomachs, which had 
not been carried away in the ordinary course of nature. He 
believed there was no less than four pounds of sand in the stomach 
of the first horse that died, nine pounds and a half in the second, 
