102 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
How much soever Mr. Rodway may be considered to be de- 
fending his own invention by carrying this action into court, still 
great praise is due to him for the manner in which it has been so 
successfully defended ; and we must also thank a Jury who could 
take so fair a view of the real merits of the question, as to give a 
verdict in opposition to the tendency of the summing up of the 
Judge. 
Fetmtiarg furisprutience* 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, GUILDHALL, 
Monday , December 15, 1845, 
Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock and a Common Jury. 
Collins v . Rodway. 
Mr. Humfrey, Q. C., and Mr. James for the plaintiff ; Mr. Jervis, 
Q. C., and Mr. Merewether conducted the defence. 
This was an action brought to recover compensation in damages 
against the defendant, for negligence and unskilfulness in the 
shoeing two horses. 
The plaintiff, who is an articled lawyer’s clerk, kept or pre- 
tended to keep two ponies, which were sent to a forge carried on 
by the defendant for the purpose of shoeing horses with a shoe 
for which he has taken out a patent. From the evidence on the 
plaintiff’s side it appears that the facts of the case were as follow: — 
A grey pony-mare was sent to be shod on the 16th July, in 
the evening, after working hours, and was shod by the particular 
desire of the plaintiff’s father; that on the 17th she was driven in 
a gig with two men in it to Barnet ; and it was with great reluct- 
ance admitted that for three miles she went sound. Nothing 
was said about her lameness to the parties who had shod her until 
the 21st. On the 20th, however, the shoes were taken off by an 
apprentice -boy to a man named Beck, a rival farrier. After the 
feet had been cut about and poulticed, the pony was re-shod by 
Beck on the 26th, and afterwards worked. It appeared that sub- 
sequently she had been turned out for nine weeks, and was said to 
have been lame during the whole of this time ; but no evidence 
was produced sufficient to prove this. 
