552 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
when he proved to them that the cattle of other persons drank 
from the same stream and were not injured. Was it not 
probable, he would ask them, that the cows had the remains 
of disease in them, as they had heard that they were ill in 
the previous summer, and after being nourished in the 
winter, it broke out on the cows being put to grass in the 
spring ? Mr. Spooner, who had been called by the plain- 
tiff, had himself told them that the symptoms were somewhat 
analogous to those of the mouth disease. He should show 
them that Mr. Hodson’s, Mr. Upton’s, and Mr. Page’s 
cattle, which drank of the same stream, were uninjured, and 
therefore it was most extraordinary if the disease in Mr. 
Lathbury’s cows was occasioned by the water. It would be 
for the jury to say whether the disease of the cows was 
occasioned by any act of the defendant’s, and in the event of 
their coming to the question of compensation, he must ask 
them not to take Mr. Lathbury’s estimate, which certainly 
appeared to him to be an exaggerated one, but to rely on 
their own judgment. The profits of a dairy farmer were 
enormous, if Mr. Lathbury s estimate was correct. As it 
respected the hay, too, he could not believe that one month 
would make a difference of 15 cwt. an acre. The learned 
sergeant concluded by saying, that, after calling witnesses on 
behalf of the defendant, he should leave it to the jury to 
decide between the parties. 
Mr. Joseph Page, farmer, of Stretton, was then examined. 
He stated that the field in which the tank was belonged to 
him. There were cattle left in the field at the same time as 
the tank was there, and occasionally after rain the tank over- 
flowed, leaving a deposit of gas tar on the grass. The 
cattle drank of the water in the stream into which the tank 
was emptied, but they did not sustain any damage. In 
May, 1853, a large number of cows suffered from the mouth 
disease. On cross-examination, he stated that he refused to 
allow a surveyor to take the level of the watercourse, and 
that Mr. Harrison, Mr. Earle’s manager, married his 
daughter. In reply to a juryman, the witness stated that 
there was also some pure water to which his cattle had 
access. 
Mr. Wm. TJpton, farmer, stated that the watercourse, after 
leaving Mr. Lathbury’s field, ran by his farm ; his cattle 
partook of the water, but were not injured. On cross- 
examination, he said his land was half a mile from Mr. 
Lathbury’s. 
Mr. Chas. Morgan , who was in the employ of Mr. Earle in 
1851, stated that he gave directions for the tank to be 
