492 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
The Jury were some time before they agreed upon their 
verdict. They agreed that there had been improper treat- 
ment, and two of them were of opinion that the treatment 
accelerated the death, but the other ten jurymen hesitated on 
this point. 
Lord Campbell told them that if they were of opinion that 
there had been improper treatment, and that that had acce- 
lerated the death, or done any harm whatever to the mare, it 
was the duty of the jury, in point of law, to find their verdict 
for the plaintiff ; but the amount of the damages was entirely 
for the jury. 
Ultimately the jury found for the plaintiff — Damages, £5. 
Mr. Huddleston applied for a certificate that the cause was 
a proper one to be tried in a superior court. 
Lord Campbell granted the application. 
[It being probable that a new trial will take place in this 
case, we refrain from making any lengthy comments upon it. 
No veterinary surgeon in extensive practice can super- 
intend the administration of all the medicine to his several 
patients which he daily prescribes ; and therefore, as he is 
bound for the acts of his servants, it behoves him to take 
care that he has in his employ those who are competent to 
the performance of such duty. In the present case, no want 
of professional skill is attributed to Mr. Moss in the treat- 
ment of the case ; and the simple question, as it appears to us, 
is, whether the man had recourse or not to the right method 
of administering a draught? Animals differ in their tem- 
perament ; and many, even when suffering from acute disease, 
and consequent prostration of the vital powers, will resist 
to the utmost the exhibition of medicine, either in the form 
of draught or ball. With such animals various expedients are 
resorted to, and to a great extent these are legitimate and con- 
sequently to be defended. Care, however, should be especially 
taken in such cases, that everything is done properly, and 
that proper instruments and adjuncts are employed. Whether 
the mare in question was such a one as we have alluded to, 
or whether the man fastened her head to the beam as being 
his common practice, does not appear from the report ; if the 
latter, we venture to ask if the plan is a right and proper 
one? Without prejudice to the case, we may say that an 
animal in such a position would deglutate with great difficulty, 
and that an accident, such as is said to have occurred, is more 
likely to take place than w hen an elevator, entrusted to the 
care of an assistant, is employed to raise the animal’s head 
to a convenient height.] 
