491 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
Kingdon v. Moss. 
This was an action brought against a veterinary surgeon 
for the recovery of the value of a horse alleged by the 
plaintiff to have been destroyed through the improper 
administration of a draught by a servant of the defendant. 
Mr. Huddleston and Mr. W. James appeared for the 
plaintiff; and Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Kerr for the 
defendant. 
The plaintiff, Richard Kingdon, was an attorney ; and he 
sued the defendant, F. W. Moss, a veterinary surgeon in the 
Vauxhall Road, to recover damages for the improper treat- 
ment of a mare, which died in consequence. It appeared 
that on the 19th of December last the defendant had been 
called in to attend the plaintiff’s mare for what appeared to 
be a severe cold, and administered medicine. On the 21st 
he sent his servant to administer a draught, and, according 
to the evidence given by the plaintiff’s servant, the man 
fastened the mare’s head by a cord to a beam of the stable, 
and so poured the draught down. The mare immediately 
began to cough and kick about, and in other ways to show 
signs of great pain. This brought the plaintiff into the 
stable, and he at once told the man that he had killed the 
mare. The defendant continued to attend the mare till the 
31st of December, when she died. On a post-mortem 
examination it appeared, according to the evidence of medical 
witnesses called for the defendant, that the mare died of 
pleuro-pneumonia ; but in the left lung there were tubercles 
in various stages, also an abscess which had broken, and 
adhesions between the lungs and ribs. On the part of the 
plaintiff it was contended, that the pleuro-pneumonia arose 
from some foreign substance, the medicine having gone the 
wrong way, and so got into the air passages of the lungs; 
while the defendant contended that the death arose entirely 
from natural disease, which was evidently of some standing. 
It was admitted by the defendant and his witnesses, that it 
was improper to fix a horse’s head when administering medi- 
cine; but the fact was denied by the man, who said he had so 
tied the halter to the beam by a slip knot, that he could in a 
moment set the horse’s head free by pulling the cord. 
Lord Campbell, in summing up the evidence, said it was 
for the jury to say whether or not there had been improper 
treatment, aud whether that treatment had caused or acce- 
lerated the death. 
