VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
503 
Witness. — By hard riding in breaking. I don’t believe 
shoeing would produce that disease. 
By Mr. Jillard . — There may have been a difference of opi- 
nion as to whether the horse was lame in both fore-feet or not. 
Sydney James. — I am a veterinary surgeon, and have 
passed the college. In June last I examined the horse at the 
Repository. I found him very lame in both fore-feet, I 
should suppose it was of long standing and produced by hard 
riding. It was a chronic disease. The feet were in a dis- 
eased state, very hot and feverish — I mean inflammation of 
the feet and contraction. There was a slight enlargement of 
the near hock inside ; that is termed bone-spavin. I only- 
observed it upon one. The horse was walked and trotted in 
my presence. He went very lame, when trotted, but did not 
show very much of it when he walked. That horse was an 
unsound one. 
The Judge. — Was it capable of cure ? 
Witness. — I should suppose not ; — not a permanent cure. 
Cross-examined. — I gave a certificate. — In that certificate 
I don’t say anything about the hock. I gave a certificate to 
show that the horse was lame in both fore-feet, and that was 
sufficient to prove unsoundness. There was a very slight 
enlargement of the near hock, but not sufficient to cause 
lameness. I have practised some years and was admitted 
into the college in May last. 
The certificate given by Mr. James was as follows: 
“ June 9 th, 1853. The bay gelding submitted to me for examination by Mr. 
Brooke, is lame from inflammation existing in both the fore-feet, consequently 
unsound. 
“I am, Sir, yours obediently, 
“ Sydney James, M.R.C.V.S.” 
This was the case for the plaintiff. 
Mr . Jillard than addressed the Court for the defence. He 
observed that he should call before the court a number of 
witnesses of the highest respectability. Mr. Martin who 
bred the horse, would prove that he gave no warranty, and 
that the horse was perfectly, sound. The evidence given by 
Moores had no foundation whatever; it was a trumped-up 
story. He should introduce into the box a young lady who 
would corroborate her uncle’s statement, and would prove 
that her uncle and the plaintiff were in company for two 
hours, and that during that time she did not leave the room 
for one quarter of a minute. Then he should call an eminent 
veterinary surgeon who examined the horse, and would prove 
that on the 3d and 9th of June, the horse was perfectly 
sound ; and lastly, he should adduce the testimony of the 
