VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 535 
of the dogs confided to me for medical treatment, or that either 
of them had even been ill. He considered 5s. per week each 
sufficient ; and said he could produce a party whom he had 
consulted on the business to prove it was. But the gentleman, 
it turned out, was not forthcoming . 
Mr. Frere then brought forward Mivart’s servant to prove 
that neither of the dogs was ever ill. But, to Mr. Frere’s great 
surprise, this witness gave evidence to the contrary. This man 
also endeavoured to prove there was no agreement between Mr. 
Dyce Sombre and myself, although he was not in the room at 
the time ; but from the equivocating manner in which he gave 
his evidence he was desired to stand down, and idtimalely the 
magistrate ordered him out of the court. 
Mr. Frere then endeavoured to prove that neither of the dogs 
was ill three weeks before, at the time he was acting the part 
of a private gentleman as well as attorney at the Clarendon, in 
the presence of Mrs. D. Sombre. Mr. Kent, the veterinary 
surgeon, had, however, previously stated, he had examined the 
dogs on the 8th instant, the day before the hearing, and that 
the sick dog had not yet recovered. Mr. F. disputed Mr. 
Kent’s opinion, when the magistrate remonstrated with Mr. 
Frere, in disputing the opinion of Mr. Kent, known as a highly 
respectable and qualified veterinary surgeon. Mr. Frere never 
offered, as the reporter stated, a fair and just remuneration; 
though the magistrate, notwithstanding he did not award the 
full demand, decided in my favour against Mr. Frere, and Mr. 
F. had to pay the expense of the summons. 
The reporter (for there was only one ) who furnished the 
papers, not only stated my name to be Vignes instead of Vines, 
but gave an unjust statement, tending to injure me in my pro- 
fessional practice. It is stated in the report, my charge was 
10s. per week for each dog, from the end of May to the 9th of 
August ; whereas, my charge/or medical treatment, including 
keep, was 10 s. each for the first two weeks, to be reduced to 9s. 
and ultimately to 8s. I should not, perhaps, have charged the 
same for the dog which did not require medical treatment, had 
I not been informed that Mr. Sombre was much attached to 
the animal, and therefore wished the greatest care to be taken 
of her, and on that account was so liberal to make me the offer 
himself. Whereas, Mr. Frere, on the part of Mrs. Dyce 
Sombre, made me an offer of reduction to 5s. per week, which 
I felt I could not, in justice to myself and honour to the pro- 
fession, comply with. What, therefore, the reporter stated is 
not correct ; and most of the papers have in part contradicted 
his partial and erroneous statement. The report of the matter 
tends to shew the way in which the London daily and Sunday 
