872 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the disease, but saw one slieep that was badly diseased. Had 
defendant exercised reasonable diligence he must have discovered 
the fact that the sheep were suffering from scab. More than six 
months back witness had treated sheep belonging to the defendant 
for the disease. In reply to the Bench, witness said one sheep af- 
fected with scab might have got amongst the flock without defend- 
ant's knowing it. In answer to defendant, witness said he knew 
that a man named Plummer had been employed by defendant to 
dress the sheep. He had six months back officially returned these 
sheep as sound. In re-examination witness said a man of 
defendant's experience ought to have detected scab as soon as he 
saw it. It was impossible to make a mistake concerning the sheep. 
Witness saw one very badly affected. If the sheep had 
only been suffering from “ fly" the symptoms would have been 
different. 
Mr. Robert Gillett , farmer, of Antingham, saw Mr. Smith and 
some sheep on the Castle Hill on the 2nd inst. He ascertained 
that the sheep belonged to Mr. Walpole. There could be very 
little doubt about the sheep being affected with scab. They were 
decidedly so affected. Witness said no man could see the sheep 
without being convinced they were suffering from scab. In reply 
to defendant, witness said a sheep affected with scab would pluck 
its wool, but a sheep affected with maggots or flies would not do 
this. If a sheep was badly “ lousy" it would bite its wool; 
but any man who had once seen scab must know it again at 
once. 
Defendant called James Storey, who said he remembered 
defendant reporting these sheep some time about Christmas last. 
Witness went to Plummer's for defendant, and told him to dress 
the sheep and cure them. Plummer did cure the sheep, and they 
were pronounced sound somewhere about last May. Witness had 
been in the habit of seeing these sheep every day, but he was not 
aware that there was anything the matter with them. In cross- 
examination, witness said he was farming bailiff to defendant. 
Defendant bought the sheep off the farm, allowing 5 85. a piece 
for them. 
In defence Mr. Walpole said the sheep were pronounced sound, 
and he did not know that they had anything the matter with 
them. He had slaughtered the sheep in accordance with Mr. 
Smith's instructions. 
The magistrates having retired to consult, 
The Chairman said the Bench considered the case fully proved 
as to one sheep. There were doubts respecting the others, and 
therefore the penalty would be reduced to £5, with £3 2$. costs. 
