VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 757 
character. Had known instances of the same kind in sheep. He 
had some meal with him which had been untouched. 
The professor made an experiment with some of the meal in 
a glass of water, with a view of showing how the sand separated 
itself. He further stated that he found fragments of chopped straw 
in the earthy matter taken from the horses. 
Dr. Taylor , of Colston Bassett, was called to speak to having ana- 
lysed certain portions of meal taken to him by Mr. Keyworth, but 
Mr. Wills objected that it had not been traced. 
Mr. Wills said, in addressing the jury for the defendants, that it 
was an unfortunate circumstance for his clients, and for the admi- 
nistration of justice, that they had been deprived of the opportunity 
of making scientific experiments of their own by the conduct of the 
plaintiff. In February, 1871, his clients applied, through their 
solicitor, to Mr. Parsons, for a portion of the meal in which the 
sand was alleged to have been found, in order that they might have 
an analysis. No answer was made to the letter, and then an appli- 
cation was made to a judge in Chambers, but was not successful in 
consequence of an affidavit being made by the plaintiff that he had 
so small a portion left that he could not give any up. Professor 
Tuson, however, had showed how fallacious that was by exhibiting 
a spare quantity in a bag. 
He then reminded the jury upon the evidence as to warranty, 
that his clients were men of tried position. It struck him as a 
remarkable circumstance that upon every occasion when the plaintiff 
bought his rice meal he said, “ Mind, I must have a warranty with 
it.” Was it a usual thing in purchasing an article which he had 
been in the habit of obtaining many years to say that he must have 
it warranted ? As to the statement of the plaintiff that the defend- 
ant, Mr. Warhurst, or his clerk, said they had a mill of their own, it 
wa^ well known that they were merely dealers. Mr. Wills then 
gave the jury a history of the defendants’ case, stating that on the 
18th of June, they wrote for forty bags of rice meal from Messrs. 
Irving and Co., who carried on extensive works in Liverpool. They 
had carried on business with this firm for years, and whatever might 
be the result of this case, there could be no personal blame attached 
to his clients, who had no more to do with the composition of the 
rice meal than any of the jury. He should call witnesses to prove 
that out of the same lot as Mr. Newton was supplied with, other 
persons used meal without any deleterious effects being produced 
upon their horses. This lot and another lot sent by the North 
Shore Company, of Liverpool, left the mills without being touched on 
the way, and it was impossible to contend that any admixture ever 
purposely took place. Now, this rice meal was composed of rice 
husks, and there might be grit in it from the mill stones, and other 
comparative refuse might get mixed with it. Rice meal was not a 
fine material, and could not be expected to be free from this kind of 
impurity. Anything like pure rice meal was unknown in the 
trade. He then commented upon the fact that the plaintiff, after 
originally sending in a claim of £75, had since increased it to £125, 
