548 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Strafford Assizes. 
LATHBURY V. EARLE. 
Mr. Keating, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore, appeared for the 
plaintiff; and Mr. Alexander, Q.C., and Mr. Phipson, were 
counsel for the defendant. 
Mr. Keating , in stating the case, said that the plaintiff, Mr. 
John Lathbury, was a large dairy farmer at Stretton, in this 
county ; and the defendant, Mr. Thomas Earle, was a railway 
contractor, who, in 1852 and 1853, w as engaged in making a 
railway from Burton to Tutbury, the line passing near to the 
plaintiff’s farm at Stretton. There w 7 as a mode of pickling 
the w 7 ood used in making the line in a strong mixture of 
creosote, and for this purpose the defendant had a tank at 
Stretton, very near to the* plaintiff’s farm. After the 
permanent way had been laid down, the stuff in the tank had 
to be got rid of, and Mr. Earle’s men proceeded to pump it 
out into a culvert, which passed under the canal and to a 
water course going through Mr. Lathbury’s fields, where he 
had a watering place for his cattle. This w r as in the autumn 
of 1852, when Mr. Lathbury had the cattle tied up. In 
April, 1853, he turned the cattle out into the field adjoining 
the watering place, and very soon afterwards the effects of 
the poison were apparent. The mouths of the cows became 
burnt and black, and their hocks were also affected. The 
symptoms becoming alarming, a veterinary surgeon was sent 
for, and an examination took place, from w hich it w T as appa- 
rent that the cow 7 s had been injured by the w r ater. The cows 
went back in their milk, which, as the jury were aw are, must 
have been a great loss to the plaintiff. Mr. Lathbury applied 
to Mr. Harrison, Mr. Earle’s agent, who promised to have 
the watercourse cleansed out, and in the mean time he re- 
quested Mr. Lathbury to put the cows into some meadow 
land w hich he had put up for grass. The cows w ere kept in 
the meadow for a month, w 7 hen they were returned to their 
former pasture, but they never recovered their milk. They 
would hear from Mr. Lathbury the loss which he had sus- 
tained, both by the diminished quantity of milk, and through 
having had to put the cow t s for a month into grass intended 
for mowing, and for the recovery of which this action had 
been brought. Some negotiations had been carried on with 
