220 
REPLY OF PROFESSOR DICK. 
her, and stated that I was of opinion there was a fracture of some 
of the bones in connection with the foot, but, although that was 
my opinion, I would take off the shoe and examine the foot. 
Upon doing so, I found separation of the insensible sole from the 
sensible, on the outside of the foot, from the very point of the heel, 
as far forward as the point of the frog, and terminating internally 
with the frog. I advised him to take her home, and poultice her 
foot. I saw her again on the 1st of February : she was no better; 
I searched for any wound, but could not find .one : I therefore or- 
dered the poultice to be continued. 
I saw her again on the 3d : a large portion of gangrenous sub- 
stance oozed out at the top of the hoof. I searched again for a 
communication from the sole upward, but could not find any but 
sinuses from the coronet upwards. The disease proceeded rapidly, 
and she died on the 9th of February. 
On examination after death, matter was found extending above 
the fetlock, but T could trace its origin from the external wing of 
the coffin-bone of the off hind leg. There was another small frag- 
ment or two, which were lost. 
I have sent the bones as a parcel with the mail : please to 
return them in the same manner, lest they should be called for in 
court ; and your opinion whether sloughing of the bone in so short 
a time could have taken place without fracture through such an 
extent. 
Reply of Professor Dick to the Account of this 
Fracture. 
Dear Sir, — I do not think it possible that the owner of the mare 
you mention can make your brother liable for her value under the 
circumstances you mention, as I think it very probable that the 
foot had been crushed with The cart at the time of the fall, and 
the os pedis had been fractured in consequence, and given rise to 
all the bad effects which followed. I am the more confirmed in 
that opinion, from the circumstance of having had to advise a 
mare to be destroyed last month, from one of her hind feet being 
severely injured by a cart that was thrown down in a similar 
manner, and without any external wound being produced. 
I hold that, independent of the accident, and although it were 
proved that your brother’s men had pricked the mare, he is not 
liable for damages, unless it can be proved that it was done wil- 
fully, or from culpable negligence, and that to a criminal extent, 
because it would be gross injustice to hold a smith liable for the 
value of a horse, when he is only paid at the rate of about a half- 
