VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
293 
Mr. Prideaux, in opening the case, said the action was 
brought to recover the value of a mare, which had become 
lame in consequence of the unskilful shoeing of the de- 
fendant, and had to be killed. A second count of the 
declaration set forth that the defendant was retained to treat 
the horse after it was lame ; that it was treated carelessly 
and negligently, and that in consequence of such treatment 
the horse became unsound, and ultimately had to be killed. 
The defendant first pleaded not guilty, and secondly he 
denied that he had been retained to treat the defendant’s 
horse as the declaration alleged. The facts of the case were 
shortly these : — The plaintiff was a lime -burner, brick and 
tile-maker, a stone and coal-merchant, and a barge-master, 
carrying on business in Avon Street, St. Philip’s, and the 
defendant was a farrier in the same street. In the year 1849 
the plaintiff bought a valuable mare for £ 26 , which was 
employed to draw barges between this city and Bath. The 
defendant was engaged to shoe the plaintiff’s horses, and he 
had shod the mare in question. After the mare had been 
shod she was employed in her usual work of drawing barges 
between this city and Bath ; but about three weeks after 
being shod, whilst returning from the above place, it was 
found that the mare was lame. When the mare was brought 
home she was taken to the plaintiff’s stables, where she was 
attended by the defendant till killed by his advice. He should 
be able to show by the evidence of two witnesses, named 
Wiltshire and Luker, that all the defendant had done was 
slightly to pare the sole of the foot, and to apply a poultice 
to it, with the exception of, on one occasion, when he applied 
a little powder to the upper part of the foot ; whereas, as he 
understood the case, the horny part of the sole of the foot 
ought to have been cut away, so as to free the matter. Find- 
ing that the mare was getting worse and worse, the defendant 
said it was a bad job, and the mare had better be killed, 
which was accordingly done. With respect to the value of 
the mare, he should be able to show that she was a valuable 
animal, and that in consequence of the increased demand for 
labour, the value of cart-horses, such as the one in question, 
was much greater now than a little while ago. 
Wiltshire, a haulier, and Luker, a lime-burner, were then 
called, and deposed that the defendant had only slightly 
pared the horny part of the horse’s hoof, and had only applied 
a poultice to it, with the exception of once applying a little 
powder. In his cross-examination, Luker said the defendant 
had cut away the hoof quite thin ; but witness, who was 
present, saw no trace of any matter ; the hoof was poulticed 
xxvi. 39 
