344 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
time alleged to be the result of assisted labour, prescribed another 
drink. Signs, however, became more intense, and the animal was 
then pronounced to be affected with “ disease on the chest.” The 
affection became more aggravated, and in spite of blisters and drinks, 
the animal died on the 10th of February. 
Other cattle — principally young stock — had been purchased by 
defendant and mixed with the Etwall cows ; and, after the death of 
the one just alluded to, several animals, young and old, were seized 
and died ; while others, some of which were also the young ones, 
sickened for a time, but recovered. No 'post-mortem examination 
was made of the carcass of the first cow ; one or two of those subse- 
quently attacked were examined, but the major part were buried 
without medical investigation. 
In the early part of the month of April, a cow on plaintiff’s farm 
was seized, cast her calf, and after three weeks of amateur doctoring, 
was killed on the 25th of same month ; and subsequently, up to 
September 25th of same year, nine cows in all died, the periods of 
seizure varying from one month to six or eight weeks. Plaintiff now 
became convinced that he had to deal with a contagious malady, 
although about five years previous to his losses he had, under a 
different idea, fearlessly prescribed all the forms in homoeopathy 
without injury to his own stock, paid almost daily visits to diseased 
cattle on the adjoining farm, then in the occupation of a Mr. Bonnett, 
who suffered ruin from the loss of the whole of his herd of pedigree 
stock. Plaintiff concluded Brookes’s cattle had brought “ the 
complaint,” the herdsman having assisted at the calving, had taken 
matter on his clothes which conveyed it directly to plaintiff’s cows. 
He then brought the action, based on two counts, viz. : That de- 
fendant had knowingly allowed to exist on his farm a specific con- 
tagious disease among his cows, and suppressed all information 
thereon to the injury of plaintiff; and, second, that defendant had 
wilfully and fraudulently enticed plaintiff’s herdsman in his (plain- 
tiff’s) absence from home to his injury, and caused said herdsman to 
assist in a certain operation on a cow which defendant then well 
knew was affected with a highly contagious disease, resulting in the 
conveyance of said disease to the stock on plaintiff’s farm, death of 
nine cows and illness of eight others. Damages (which plaintiff 
considered were beyond estimate) were laid at £300. 
Mr. Merryweather and Mr. Bulwer appeared for the plaintiff, 
instructed by Messrs. Bass and Jennings, Burton-on-Trent. 
Mr. O’Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Messrs. E. 
and T. Eisher, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, attended on behalf of the de- 
fendant. 
The preceding facts were brought out by examination of plaintiff 
and his witnesses ; and Mr. Garrard, M.R.C.V.S., Ticknall, sup- 
ported the view taken, that the disease had been brought from 
Mrs. Cramp’s farm on the 11th November, and that the period of 
incubation of pleuro-pneumonia is at least three months and even 
upwards. Mr. Wm. Robinson, M.R.C.V.S., Tamworth, mainly 
corroborated the statements of previous witness, but thought if 
