VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
171 
Mr. Middleton, instructed by Mr. Read, represented tlie plaintiff; 
and Mr. Vincent Thompson, instructed by Mr. Whiteley, repre- 
sented the defendant. 
The ground of action was an alleged breach of agreement. On 
behalf of the plaintiff, it was shown that Pattison sold him, in 1867, 
the business conducted in Great George Street for <£160, the defen- 
dant going to Ilkley, and leaving Fearnley in sole possession. This 
year, however, the defendant seemed anxious to resume his avoca- 
tion in Leeds, and, after various interviews, an agreement was drawn 
up by which, for £120, the plaintiff re-transferred the horse-shoe- 
ing part of the business to the defendant, but, in consideration of 
£2 2s. per annum, the plaintiff was to have the use of a small 
office for his veterinary practice. There was also a clause in the 
agreement to the effect that Pattison was to use his best endeavours 
to recommend his customers to employ Mr. Fearnley whenever the 
services of a veterinary surgeon were required. It was this part of 
the bargain which was alleged to have been broken. The defendant 
entered upon the premises on the 1st of June, and from that date 
to this, although previously he had made 25s. a week by his vete- 
rinary practice, the plaintiff never had a single case referred to him. 
In short, he charged the defendant with having himself doctored 
the horses brought to his smithy, and with having done nothing to 
forward his interests. In his evidence Fearnley stated that he had 
on three occasions seen the defendant operating on the animals 
brought to him. When the defendant was about to apply a remedy 
in a “sitfast” case, the plaintiff entered the smithy, and Pattison 
said to him, “ Here! you might as well have the shilling as me.” 
Plaintiff replied, “I should think I should.” On another occasion, 
Pattison lanced an abscess on the hip of a pony, and he had also 
administered balls to a horse. Corroborative testimony was adduced 
in support of the plaintiff’s evidence, and then Mr. Thompson sub- 
mitted that the cases in which the defendant had operated as a 
veterinary surgeon had occurred at times when the plaintiff was not 
in the way, and that he was not bound to send for the plaintiff, as 
he was at liberty to exercise some discretion. 
In reply to his Honour, the defendant said he could not name a 
single customer to whom he had said that he had only bought the 
shoeing business, and that Mr. Fearnley had the veterinary practice 
in charge. He denied that he had made overtures to have the 
business transferred, and said the plaintiff appealed to him three or 
four times. Mr. Thompson contended that the case had not been 
established, but that if there was any case proved the damages asked 
were excessive. Mr. Middleton stated that the plaintiff was en- 
titled under the agreement to the defendant’s recommendation and 
all the benefit accruing. There had been no benefit, however, and 
it had been shown that the defendant had not recommended in any 
instance. His Honour observed that the defendant was only bound 
to recommend the plaintiff (so loosely was the agreement worded) 
to such customers as required the services of a veterinary surgeon. 
He decided upon reserving his judgment until Wednesday. 
