294 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
and hot bathed, and blood taken from the toe ; the mare was 
ill about three weeks. Witness had been acquainted with 
horses for the last fourteen years, and he did not know what 
was the matter with the mare ; there was proud flesh on the 
hoof, to which Mr. Maunder applied lunar caustic. 
Mr. John Kent was then called and deposed that a hoof of 
a mare was brought to him on the 18th February; he care- 
fully examined it, and saw that matter had been formed in it, 
and that it had worked its way out at the top instead of 
being let out at the bottom ; it would not have been a diffi- 
cult case for one who knew what he was about ; the matter 
had forced its way out at the top ; the object should have 
been to let the matter out at the bottom, which could have 
been done if the sole had been properly removed ; it was a 
great object with a veterinary surgeon not to allow of the 
escape of matter at the top ; he saw no proud flesh ; in his 
opinion the want of proper treatment was the cause of 
incurable lameness. 
Cross-examined. — The lameness might have been caused 
by a nail driven in too close when shod three weeks or a 
month ago ; lameness in that case would not necessarily 
come on gradually ; it might come on suddenly ; he had 
never known lameness arise from a ruptured vessel, but he 
had known lameness from an injured ligament ; bleeding in 
the toe in a bungling manner would sometimes cause inflam- 
mation, and the consequent formation of matter ; the paring 
of the sole was proper so far as it went, but it was not 
enough. If a man did not know how to discover the exist- 
ence of matter, of course he would not know it was there any 
more than a blind man could see. Witness had had horses 
die under his treatment ; he had an action brought against 
him for improper treatment, but he gained the action, as the 
treatment was not improper. 
One or two witnesses having deposed to the value of the 
horse, from £15 to £20, — 
Mr. Stone addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant. 
He said he had not troubled himself much about the 
evidence given, being as to the value of the old mare which 
they had heard cost £26 four years ago, during which time 
she had been thoroughly worked, because the verdict of the 
jury would turn upon the view they might take of the con- 
duct of the defendant in his treatment of the horse in ques- 
tion. It would appear that, according to the plaintifPs own 
showing, the horse had been shod on ail four feet about three 
or four weeks previous to its getting lame. A day or two 
before that event one of the feet had been re-shod, but it 
