COMMUNICATION FROM J. HAWTHORN. 
649 
The purchaser was a clever, keen man, and I saw I could 
not get on. I then asked him to settle the matter with me, 
which, after a good deal of talking, was done in the following 
manner: he was to take the*horse as he was, and to give £80 
instead of £120 for it. It was very reluctantly agreed to, 
but my employer was satisfied, as he knew he had sold the 
horse well and the return would spoil his future sale. More- 
over, he could not spare the money, and do what I would, I 
was not to take the horse again. 
Now in this case I think science was pushed too far, so as 
to interfere with practical business, and to create a prejudice 
against veterinary examinations. No practical man, if he 
had seen the foot, would have refused to buy a horse with 
such a corn as that, as good ordinary shoeing would soon 
have got rid of it. The same scientific argument might be 
used against the smallest splints, or the smallest curb, or the 
smallest windgall, or the smallest thorough-pin, &c., &c. I 
cannot think of anything at present which so much resembles a 
“corn” in a horse’s foot, as extravasation of blood from a bruise 
under the nail of the human hand, and I have often had a 
worse “ corn” of this kind than this horse had. It is true, I 
believe, that veterinary surgeons seldom take off the shoes to 
examine a horse for corns, but can an examination without 
it be complete ? I think not. Might it not be imperative 
that buyers should have the shoes taken off, the seller or his 
agent being present? and if the buyer is satisfied, then 
nothing more should be said about corns. Two removes would 
cost but sixpence, the time required a quarter of an hour, 
and the shoes might be put on again, the nails being put in 
the old holes. If the buyer wished to dispense with this he 
should take the responsibility. 
There are many causes of dispute about horses which might 
be removed and the law made much plainer, which, from my 
own observation, would give satisfaction to the dealer and 
purchaser, and the veterinary surgeon would be relieved from 
much harass and I'esponsibility. Could not a number of 
experienced veterinary surgeons, say from forty to sixty years 
of age. who had seen full practice, revise the whole matter of 
soundness and unsoundness, and that in such a manner as 
to reduce the number of disputes which now make horse- 
causes a by-word and a disgrace to all parties ? 
Soon afterwards another employer sold a horse to a mem- 
ber of the veterinary profession. In two or three weeks the 
seller received notice of a return for a “corn.” I strongly 
recommended him to write and say that as he (the buyer) 
was employed by others, and paid to examine horses, he 
xxix. 83 
