VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
237 
vessels, and he should say that not many drops of blood 
would issue from such a wound. The bleeding being fresh 
when the horse arrived at Tallington, he was of opinion that 
the injury had been recently inflicted. He could not think 
that it was an old wound broken out afresh. 
This concluded the case for the plaintiff ; and 
Mr . Bell , at some length, addressed the jury for the de- 
fence, contending that there was not the slightest tittle of 
evidence to prove any default or negligence on the part of 
the Company. The box in which the horse was conveyed 
from Newark to Tallington had been examined both by the 
Company’s servants and the plaintiff himself, and nothing 
was found that could in any way inflict the injury complained 
of. He argued that the wound was, in all probability, one 
of long standing, and the oscillation of the carriage had 
caused it to break out afresh. The learned gentleman, after 
commenting upon the evidence given by Professor Spooner, 
called upon the jury to give a verdict for the Company. 
After the evidence of two guards (who accompanied the 
train of which the horse-box formed part), Thomas Joyce and 
Jesse Eastwood, had been taken, Mr. Bell was again about 
to address the jury, but his Honour told him that such a 
course would be irregular. 
The learned gentleman then requested his Honour to put 
the three following questions to the jury in his summing up : 
Was the carriage in which the horse was put a fit and proper 
carriage? Was the horse put into that carriage properly by 
the Company’s servant ? Was there any default on the part 
of the Company or their servants, and, if so, in what respect ? 
Mr . Phillips having replied, 
His Honour impartially summed up the evidence, requesting 
the jury to take no notice whatever of the position of the re- 
spective parties, but to conscientiously discharge their duty. 
They had been told that the case had before been decided in 
that court, but he thought no enlightened jury could allow for 
a moment that decision to influence them in giving their 
verdict. This action was brought to recover damages for an 
alleged injury to a valuable horse during its transit from New- 
ark to Tallington, and the question for them to consider was, 
did the animal sustain the injury whilst in the carriage ? If 
they came to that conclusion, of course they must give a ver- 
dict for the plaintiff; but if, on the contrary, they thought 
the wound was inflicted before the animal came under the 
Company’s care, they must return a verdict for the defen- 
dants. They had had the evidence of a very eminent pro- 
fessor in the veterinary art, and it was his opinion that the 
xxx, 33 
