VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
551 
Mr. Wm. Robinson , veterinary surgeon, of Tamworth, 
stated that on the 16th of May, 1853, he was called in to see 
Mr. Lathbury’s cows, which he found in an unhealthy state. 
Their mouths, legs, and teats were discoloured. He saw the 
stuff which had been taken out of the watercourse, and it 
appeared to be a * compound of gas tar mixed with mud. 
Creosote would interfere with the general health of the cows, 
and would interrupt the secretions of milk. On cross-exami- 
nation, he said that some persons applied tarto the hoofs of 
animals, but it ought never to be so applied. On re-examina- 
tion, he said that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Lathbury’s 
cows, when he saw them in May, 1853, did not correspond 
with those of the mouth disease. 
Mr. A. J. Bernhays, of Derby, Fellow of the Chemical 
Society, stated that in January last Mr. Lathbury brought 
to him a bottle of mixture, which, on examination, he found 
to consist of gas tar, tar oil, mud, and water. On the 4th of 
July last he went to Mr. Lathbury’s farm, and examined the 
watercourse, and in several parts of it he found creosote. 
As creosote was heavier than water, it sank to the bottom, 
and would naturally become stirred up by cattle going into 
the water. In the culvert under the canal there was a large 
deposit of creosote. Insect life, as w r ell as fishes, would be 
destroyed by creosote, and it was injurious to the health of 
large animals when taken into the system. 
Mr. Charles Spooner, Professor in the Veterinary College, 
London, w 7 as next examined, and he stated that the effect of 
creosote would be to suspend the secretions of the body, and 
especially the secretion of the milk. He had heard the 
symptoms exhibited by the cows described by the witnesses, 
and they were in some respect analogous to those of the 
mouth disease, but they were not accompanied with two 
important features of the mouth disease, the blisters and the 
running. 
Mr. Alexander , Q.C., then addressed the jury on behalf of 
the defendant. He said that they ought to have been in- 
formed what the contents of the tank were, and not leave it 
to be inferred that they were the same which had been found 
in the watercourse. There were some extraordinary circum- 
stances connected with the case. They had heard that some 
young stock v T ere placed in the field adjoining the water- 
course, and it did not appear that they had suffered, and it 
was therefore extraordinary that cattle placed in the field 
in the following spring should be injured by the contents of 
the watercourse, after it had been washed by the rains of 
winter. This fact w r ould also strike them the more strongly, 
