82 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
the structure and texture of the hoof. The subject is one of 
much import to us, since in our country no other mode save hot 
shoeing, in any part of it that we know of, prevails. Nor do 
we believe that any evil or injurious consequences are sup- 
posed to result therefrom. One striking ill effect, however, 
M. Delafond seems to have demonstrated, and that is seedy toe. 
We have ever had doubts in our own mind, that the common 
notion that seedy toe proceeded from nailing, though seemingly 
plausible at first view, was erroneous ; and was shewn to be, by 
the fact of seedy toe first beginning at a part wherein, ordinarily, 
no nails are inserted. Shutting out this cause, however, we 
must confess we were at a loss, and have been so until now, 
where to look for another. If M. Delafond be right in his view 
of the matter, one cause at least — and one he himself did not 
suspect before — is brought to light. And this, so regarded, con- 
stitutes one objection, and a serious one it appears, to hot shoeing. 
And with it, we must not forget, is connected the curious fact of 
the dull red-heated shoe doing more injury than the one at a 
bright-red heat. This is too important a subject to be dropped. 
We hope we may hear from some of our practical men further 
about it. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
WINDSOR COUNTY COURT. 
[Before J. B. Parry, Esq., Q.C.] 
VALLANCE V. BROOKS. 
In this case a jury of five was empannelled, with Mr. Harris, 
of Slough, as foreman. Mr. Williams (instructed by Mr. Bis- 
good, of London) appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. Skinner (in- 
structed by Messrs. Voules and Last) for the defendant. 
Mr. Williams said, in this case Mr. Henry Vallance was the 
plaintiff, and Major-General Brooks the defendant. He had 
the honour to appear for Mr. Vallance, who was well known as 
