278 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
2nd. That any Veterinary Medical Association voting the sum of 
5820 in one donation to the funds shall be entitled to nominate one 
Lif e Governor. 
3rd. That no grant shall be made from the funds before they reach 
the sum of one thousand pounds. 
Any member wishing to amend or alter any of the rules, or having 
any suggestions to make, would oblige by communicating with me 
as early as possible. 
George Morgan, M.R.C.V.S., 
Hon. Sec. 
To the Editors of the ‘ Veterinarian .* 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
PROSECUTION UNDER THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES 
(ANIMALS) ACT, 1869. 
A Farmer fined £25. 
It will be remembered that some time ago a case came before the 
Norwich magistrates, in which Charles Huggins, a farmer and cattle 
dealer, residing at Banham, in this county, was summoned, on the 
information of Mr. Smith, veterinary inspector, for exposing on 
Norwich Hill a number of cattle affected with foot and mouth 
disease. The magistrates being of opinion that they had no juris- 
diction in the case, declined to hear it, and the Court of Queen’s 
Bench was afterwards applied to for a mandamus. The matter 
w r as brought under the notice of the House of Commons by Mr. 
Clare Sewell Read, who asked the Vice-President of the Council 
if he was aware that such doubt existed as to the power of sum- 
mary jurisdiction of justices under the Contagious Diseases (Ani- 
mals) Act that the Norwich and other magistrates had declined 
to hear any summonses under the Act, and if he would take steps 
to remove the uncertainty which now existed ; and if, when the local 
authorities asked information from the Veterinary Department of 
the Privy Council, an answer, stating “ that it is not within the 
province, of this department to interpret an Act of Parliament,” was 
all the aid local authorities were to receive from the Privy Council 
in carrying out the Act and orders for suppressing contagious dis- 
eases among cattle. 
Mr. W. E. Forster replied that the Privy Council was aware that 
some doubts had been expressed as to whether a summary jurisdiction 
was enacted by the Act of last Session, though, he could not suppose 
tliat there was any doubt at all as to whether it was intended to do so. 
They had consulted the law officers of the Crown, and were advised 
that such summary jurisdiction did exist. They were aware that the 
magistrates of Norwich, among others, had refused for a time to issue 
