758 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
and concluded by saying that his clients were free from all blame in 
the matter. 
Mr. H. TFarhurst, one of the defendants, said he had the manage- 
ment of the rice meal business. The firm had also a large coal 
business at Nottingham and Derby. In 1868 and 1869 he dealt 
with the plaintiff and no complaint was made. In 1870 he supplied 
four lots of rice meal. On the 22nd June he sold him ten packs 
out of a lot of forty. Mr. Pink took the order. lie purchased the 
forty packs from Irving, Son, and Jones, of Liverpool. He sold ten 
to the plaintiff; twenty to Mrs. Scrimshaw; three to Mr. Bower; 
one to Mr. Burton ; two to Mr. Amatt ; three to Mr. Beecroft ; and 
one to Mr. Watchorn. The second lot consisted of twenty packs, 
which he bought of the same firm. The second ten packs sold to the 
plaintiff, were sent to Bingham station direct ; the other ten were 
sent to Mr. Bower, ofWhatton. The third lot came from the North 
Shore Mills Company, Liverpool ; a portion of the meal went to 
plaintiff, the rest to Mr. Mellons, of Basford, and Mr. Scott, of 
Ruddington. He had never received any complaints from any of 
his customers except Newton, and the same kind of rice meal was 
now being used. He never warranted any of the meal ; no such 
question was asked. Newton purchased from us other things beside 
rice meal, such as Indian corn, and oil cake. There is no such thing 
known in the trade as pure rice meal. There must be impurities in 
it arising from the husks and from the process of manufacture. He 
did not manufacture this article, and never told plaintiff he had 
mills of his own. Believed Newton had said he should like to see it 
made, and witness might have said that if he liked he could take 
him to see it made. He applied for samples through his solicitor, 
but they were refused. The sediment would naturally go to the 
bottom of a bag ; a sample from the bottom of a bag would not be a 
fair sample. He said to Mr. Newton when the horses were d£ad, 
“ Now give me a sample of the meal and I will take it to Liverpool 
and show the millers.” Plaintiff replied that he had not a particle 
of meal left. He (plaintiff) showed the sand to all the farmers in 
the Exchange. 
By Mr. Seymour — He denied to Mr. Newton that the meal had 
killed the horses. He had sold 18,000 sacks the year before and had 
never heard any complaints, and the other parties who had some of 
the same lot had not been dissatisfied. When he bought the second 
lot plaintiff did not ask if it was as good as the other. Had dealt 
with Irvings for five years. He thought their articles were good ; he 
had sold thousands of bags of rice meal for horses. The plaintiff 
did not say he wanted the meal for his horses ; knew he wanted it 
for his stock. Had had a complaint from Mr. Burgess. Since 
these horses died every disease had been attributed to the rice meal. 
(Laughter.) Mr. Burgess had bought largely of him for four 
or five years. He said his cattle had done very well, but he had 
found grit in the meal. He asked me to take it back, and I did, 
and sold it elsewhere without complaint. Had never tested it. 
Mr. Burgess bought some in 1868 which he. said was rather coarse, 
