896 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
made use of any such words as were attributed to him by the witness 
Thresh. 
Mr. Martin Naylor , veterinary surgeon, then stated that he 
visited the cow on the 25th May, and he was of opinion that it was 
then suffering from joint felon. He found no marks upon the udder 
of the cow. He should say that the cow had been suffering from 
the disease named for ten or fifteen days prior to his visiting her. 
Mr. Naylor was subjected to a long and severe cross-examination by 
both His Honour and Mr. Gill, and whilst adhering to his opinion, 
he admitted that the appearances he saw might have arisen from 
the cause to which they were attributed by the plaintiff’s side. 
Mr. John Schofield , of Pontefract, and Mr. Dray , of Leeds, 
veterinary surgeons, were of opinion also that the animal had 
suffered from joint felon, and not from anything else. At the close 
of their examination His Honour adjourned the case until next court 
day, reserving his verdict until that time. 
At the adjourned meeting, October 5th, His Honour summed up 
and gave judgment in the case. He recapitulated the points 
in the case with great perspicuity, remarking that the plaintiff 
took his cow to watering on the 6th May. The cow strayed on to 
the defendant’s land. The defendant came up to her and, with an 
instrument described as a hack, he struck her very violently, and 
used some very angry language. This was corroborated by a wit- 
ness, who swore that he saw the defendant strike the beast over the 
hind quarters. The effect of those blows, the udder having been 
injured, was that the cow ceased to give the amount of milk she 
had been accustomed to yield. Mr. Fallding, veterinary surgeon, 
visited the animal at intervals until the 25th May, and during that 
time he saw no traces of a disease called joint felon. Referring to 
the defence, his Honour said the defendant first of all denied upon 
oath that he ever touched the cow. He admitted that he was in 
the willow garth, with an instrument that was not a hack, but a 
hoe. He further called three veterinary surgeons as witnesses ; 
but he was not corroborated in the assertion that he did not strike 
the animal. The three surgeons saw her a few days after Mr. 
Fallding ceased visiting her, and their unanimous opinion was that 
she was suffering from joint felon. They saw no marks of any 
wound, although one of them, Mr. Naylor, admitted seeing a certain 
indication of injury on a portion of the bag. They found no 
evidences they would have expected to find if such a blow as had 
been represented had been inflicted. The points to be decided 
were, therefore, was she struck, and was her debility produced by 
the blows she received, or by some disease ? He was bound to say 
he entertained no doubt that defendant had sworn on his oath that 
which he must have known to be untrue. As to the damage, the 
question was, had she been so reduced by the injury inflicted, or by 
the disease which had been named ? It was true he was in the 
habit, where a defendant had endeavoured to obtain a verdict by 
swearing falsely, if the damage were laid reasonably, to allow the 
