VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
303 
weeks after he purchased it he was offered £5. It was 
difficult to say what was the value of the dog ; he would not 
have taken any money for it, but he should think it would 
be worth about £10 10s. 
In cross-examination by Mr. Almond — The plaintiff said 
the defendant told him that it had been kept in a loose box 
to the exclusion of a horse. He did not think the dog was 
thorough-bred ; but £5 5s. would not be the value of a 
thorough-bred dog of that kind ; he had known as much as 
£20 given for one. His dog was not a rabbit-runner. 
In re-examination he said, some parties thought a cross in 
the breed improved the dog, and he himself was of that 
opinion. 
Gilbert Hayes , a veterinary surgeon, said the original wound 
which the dog had received was very slight. It died from 
excessive cold acting upon an enlarged heart. The dog 
might or might not have died if it had been kept in a warm 
place. He should have considered himself very well paid for 
the treatment of the dog if he had got £l Is. 
In cross-examination, he said he got half-a-guinea for 
making the post-mortem examination. 
James Chisnell , a farrier, said he could not state what might 
be called a proper charge for the treatment of the dog, but 
he had cured one with a fractured leg for a gentleman named 
Bell, and he kept it for a fortnight, for less than £1 Is. 
Mr. Almond contended that the defendant’s charge of £2 2 s. 
was a proper charge under the circumstances for the treat- 
ment of the dog; and, therefore, even supposing a tender of 
£l Is. had been made by the plaintiff, that would not dis- 
charge the defendant’s lien, and he was perfectly justified in 
retaining the dog until the two guineas were paid. 
The Defendant said the wound was an inch and a half long. 
It died from disease of the heart ; it had not been at all exposed 
to cold, but, on the contrary, had been taken great care of. 
Mr. Ellis , veterinary surgeon, said he thought £2 2s. a very 
moderate charge for the treatment which the dog had 
received. 
John Store , who had been a dog-dealer for 20 years, saw 
the dog after it died, and, judging from its appearance then, 
he should have thought he had done pretty well if he had 
sold such a one for £l 10s. ; he had sold a better one for less 
money. In buying such a dog, if he had a customer for it, 
he might pay 15s. for it ; but if he bought it on speculation, 
he should only give about 10s. for it. It was not a first-rate 
dog, but <c rather behind a second-rate” one. 
George Finch , a dog-fancier for 14 years past, said he had 
