VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
27 5 
horse, but trusted Mr.Geething would keep him a little longer, 
and give him ei a bit more physic.” He never suspected him 
of being a roarer, until he noticed a thickness in his breath 
when riding him up Barrowby Hill, near Grantham, just 
before he was sent to London. He had previously only had 
walking exercise, and that not every day, as he could not 
stand it. 
In answer to Mr. Macaulay, he denied that at the time his 
master purchased the horse he had tried him at a gallop. 
A number of veterinary surgeons, resident, some in the 
metropolis and others in the country, were in succession 
called. They proved that the horse was suffering from spavin, 
or disease of the hock and ringbones or bony enlargements 
round the pastern, the result of which was that the animal 
was incurably lame. The witnesses from London, among 
whom -were Professor Spooner, of the veterinary college, and 
several other professional men of considerable eminence, 
proved that they examined the horse in July, and that it was 
evident the disease under which the animal was then suf- 
fering was of very long standing. They described it to be 
lame in both hind legs, spavin and ringbones existing in each. 
The off hind leg, the one to which Mr.Geething’s evidence was 
originally drawn, was, however, the worst. 
In conclusion, Mr. Mellor called a witness, Mr. Geething’s 
agent in London, to prove that the horse shown to these 
veterinary surgeons was the one Mr. Geething had sent to 
him, and which it had been proved by other evidence was 
the one he had purchased of the defendant. 
His Lordship asked whether Mr. Mellor intended to rest 
anything upon the fact of the horse being a roarer. He 
reminded him that no defect in its wind at all was discovered 
until it had been some months in the plaintiff’s possession. 
Mr. Mellor intimated that he did not intend to rest any- 
thing upon that. 
Mr. Macaulay then addressed the jury for the defendant, 
and in the commencement expressed his astonishment at the 
last piece of evidence, as his own belief was, after hearing the 
plaintiff’s evidence, and knowing what he should have to 
adduce before them, that the witnesses could not at all refer to 
the same horse. The learned council then in succession 
called a number of witnesses, some of whom had known the 
horse before it was sold to the plaintiff, and others who had 
examined it since, and all swore to the absence of the diseases 
the plaintiff’s witnesses had said did exist, and were incurable. 
The first witness was Mr. Martin Robinson, who resides in 
the North Riding of Yorkshire, and who deposed that he had 
