VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 603 
ness for a short time after each shoeing, and this too when 
no fault can reasonably be attributed to the smith. 
Mr. Moor , M.R.C.V.S . , gave evidence confirming Mr. 
Greaves’s statements as to the frequent occurrence of these 
kinds of lamenesses, and that the matter was never white in 
colour. That the treatment was proper treatment, and that 
no smith, however careful he might be, could possibly avoid 
these casualties. He had known horses show' lameness at 
various periods, from the second day after shoeing up to the 
time of the next shoeing, and for a horse to come back 
directly after being shod a second time, never until then 
having shown lameness; when, upon examining the foot, he 
had found matter concealed in it which must have been 
caused by the prior shoeing. The new shoe being nailed on 
tightly w r as evidently the cause of this lameness, as by com- 
pressing the part it caused pain. He further stated that it 
was quite consistent with a horse being well and skilfully 
shod that he might, notwithstanding, be pricked at the same 
time. 
Mr. Simpson , V.S. 3 gave evidence also confirming Mr. 
Greaves’s statement, as to the frequent occurrence of these 
cases, and that the matter w 7 as never white matter. He also 
considered the treatment was proper. He further explained 
to the Court that he was a practical shoeing-smith, having- 
worked in the smithy. He had shod hundreds of horses 
himself, and had himself pricked many, and that when 
he was exercising the greatest possible care and attention, 
and that no man, however skilful or careful he might 
be, could entirely avoid it. Sometimes a hidden “ stump” 
may cause the nail to take a wrong direction, and the horse 
evince no pain at the time, so that the man not knowdng it 
could not be blamed. 
The Judge having read a passage from Oliphant’s work 
c On the Laws relating to Horses,’ page 132, concluded by 
saying that one of his own horses had gathered a quantity of 
dirt or gravel under the leather sole, and which, by becoming- 
dry and hard, had caused lameness. He thought, even if it 
had not been satisfactorily showm that horses were occasion- 
ally pricked without the smith knowing it, that the evi- 
dence proved it was a casualty that could not at all times 
be avoided, but in saying this he did not mean it to be 
inferred that the trade were to practise it. He must there- 
fore nonsuit the plaintiff. 
