VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
391 
unsoundness has set in. We frequently have cases of the 
disease called “ thrush” under examination, with a discharge 
from the “ frog” of the foot, where the attack is the result of 
inflammation of its own structure ; that is, to disease of the 
structure of the foot, or where it has been brought on by an 
accumulation of dirt and neglected moisture. But in most of 
these cases we think but little of them, for they are curable. 
In the case of this particular horse, however, there is no cure, 
for there are present the symptoms of internal disease of a 
chronic character. I have seen many cases where men con- 
sidered to be good judges of horses have been taken in. The 
disease in this horse has been of considerable standing, and 
must have existed long before the time when the purchase was 
made. 
Cross-examined . — Taking the attack of thrush, where not 
chronic, it may be created probabty in forty-eight hours. In 
the course of one night, for instance, it will appear, although 
when the horse has been “put up” for the night there may not 
have been any apparent indications of its approach. It is a 
very rare result that thrush is produced by a bruise of the foot. 
With respect to the contracted feet of this animal, I believe 
that contraction to be what is denominated “congenital.” These 
are very small feet. It by no means follows that I should have 
rejected this horse simply because he has contracted feet. I 
have just seen the horse outside, and I have no hesitation in 
stating that he is lame; he is decidedly lame in the off fore foot. 
He is not now labouring under thrush, but the frog is in an 
unusually bad condition. I found that the horse had splints, 
but they are not the immediate cause of the lameness. 
Mr. Turner , Mr. Kerr , and Mr. Nice, veterinary surgeons, 
were then examined, and all corroborated the testimony of Mr. 
Spooner. 
Mr. E. James, on the part of the defendant, contended that 
the real truth of the case was, that the plaintiff, being unable to 
ride his horse, was anxious to return it to the person of whom 
he had purchased him. The plaintiff was a Dutchman*, and, as 
it happened, a Dutchman who was an exceedingly ]jad rider. 
[Laughter .] Indeed, he believed it was a proverbial fact that 
skill in equitation was not a national characteristic of the 
Flemish or of the Dutch. A “riding Dutchman” was as much 
a fable as a “flying Dutchman” [laughter . ] For himself, he 
could say that when in Holland he had seen some Dutchmen 
attempt to ride, and certainly a greater caricature upon equest- 
rianism it would be utterly impossible to conceive. With 
* The plaintiff, we are credibly informed, is a Swiss, and therefore the learned 
Counsel’s humorous caricature of Dutch equestrianism is inapplicable. — En. Vet. 
