550 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
quarts a day each. Instead of having 30 cwt. of hay an acre 
off the meadow* he had but 15 cwt., and the loss on the hay 
he calculated at £40. There was, however, £30 to be de- 
ducted from the loss by the milk, for some cheese which he 
made, and for milk used on the premises. He gave some 
samples of the water, and the mixture in the water course, to 
Mr. Bernhays, of Derby, to analyse. — On cross-examination 
he stated that some of his neighbours’ cows were afflicted 
in April, 1853, with what was called the mouth complaint; 
they had running from their mouths, and were blistered 
inside the mouth ; but his cows had not the running from 
the mouth nor the blisters. In the spring of 1852 his own 
cows had the mouth complaint. For a short time in the 
autumn of 1852, he kept some bull calves, some sheep, and a 
few horses in the fields adjoining the watercourse. — On re- 
examination he stated that he never knew an instance of cows 
having the mouth complaint two years in succession. 
Joseph Moss , cowkeeper, in the employ of the plaintiff, de- 
posed that when the cows were turned out in April they 
became ill, and their milk fell off. The place in which the 
cows were milked smelt of tar. 
Mr. John Bretton , brewer and dairy farmer, was next ex- 
amined. He stated that he saw Mr. Lathbury’s cows in 1852, 
and they were above an average quality. He saw the cows 
after they were turned out in April, and he found them dis- 
coloured about the mouth, as though they had been burnt 
by some substance ; their teats and hoofs were also discoloured 
in a similar manner. The estimate of the quantity of milk 
the cows should have produced, as given by Mr. Lathbury, 
he considered to be a fair quantity for cows of that quality. 
Thomas Flack , who had been in the employ of Mr. Earle, 
stated that he assisted in cleaning out the watercourse. The 
men engaged in the work had their hands, arms, and faces 
blistered by the stuff which they took out of the water, and 
which had come from the tank. 
Henry Hartshorne gave similar evidence to the former 
witness. 
Mr. Thomas Heath , of Burton, was next called. He stated 
that he had been a cow-leech for 20 years. On the 3d of 
May he was sent for by Mr. Lathbury, and he found his 
cows suffering from a kind of inflammation of the mouth, 
udder, and hoof. The symptoms were not at all like the 
mouth disease. On cross-examination, he stated that he 
attended some of Mr. Lathbury’s cow r s in 1852, w 7 hich w r ere 
suffering from the mouth disease, and one of them was so 
ill that he directed it to be killed. 
