SMART V. MAUNDER. 
323 
its way out at the top of the hoof, acompanied with ex- 
treme tumefaction and pain. That very great want of skill 
was apparent in the separated horn not being removed, and 
that there was clear evidence of unskilful and cruel treat- 
ment ; besides which, there was a large slough, or w r hat 
farriers term a core, coming out of the orifice where the 
matter had made its way out, which I felt sure was the effect 
of some caustic dressing, such as arsenious acid or bichloride 
of mercury, being introduced. That it was by no means 
difficult to find out wffien matter was formed in the foot, or, in 
other words, wffien suppuration had taken place ; and that a 
skilful practitioner would pare away all the horn, hoof, and 
sole wffiich was separated from the living and sensible parts, 
which the foot in court was full of, and so afforded clear 
proof that such had not been done. 
The Judge in summing-up, stated to the jury, that every 
professional man and every mechanic w r as bound, by law, to 
bring into operation all the science and skill of his occupa- 
tion ; so that if a carpenter spoiled a door or other piece of 
carpentry, either through his incompetency as a workman, 
or his carelessness, he was responsible for the injury sus- 
tained by his employer, and that a veterinary surgeon was in 
the same position. That, if Mr. Kent, with his science, had 
been the defendant in the present case, wffih exactly the same 
evidence against him, such evidence being conclusive that 
the case had not been scientifically and skilfully treated, the 
jury would have been bound to find a verdict for the plaintiff 
for damages and costs; but that in the present case the 
defendant was not a veterinary surgeon, but only a farrier; 
and that as such he was not bound to bring science or skill, 
and that, to make him responsible, it would be necessary to 
prove that he did not treat the case in the best manner he 
knew how. That no matter how ignorant the man, nor how T 
bad his treatment, it was enough if he did his best . That it 
w as in evidence that he did not neglect the horse ; that he was 
but a farrier, and that they who choose to employ farriers to 
doctor their horses must take the consequences. 
Had I been a juryman, and believed that what the judge 
stated was law 7 , I should have given a verdict for the 
defendant. 
The defendant w r as some time a shoeing-smith to friend 
Withers, and I think rather a pet, but now 7 boasts that Jack 
can beat his master in curative performances, and according to 
our worthy recorder and judge in the Bristol Tolzey Court, 
enjoys a release from and protection against responsibility, 
which is not extended to the V.S. or M.R.C.V.S. 
