COLLINS V. RODWAY. 
103 
The other, a black entire pony, was sent to be shod on the 
18th, the day after the grey was stated to have been found so 
injured by the shoeing. On the 21st the shoes were taken off 
by the farrier, Beck, and blood was said to follow the withdrawal 
of two of the nails. It was admitted that this pony’s feet were 
very thin and bad, and that the action was very high. What 
was done to this pony did not appear, only that he had been under 
the care of Mr. Field, but for what cause was not shewn, that 
gentleman not being called on to prove the nature of the malady 
for which, or at what period, he was placed under his care ; and 
that he was sold for a small sum at Aldridge’s Repository some 
time in October. 
It also appeared, that on the 21st July the plaintiff wrote to the 
defendant, stating that the ponies had both been lamed by the 
carelessness of the workmen in his employ, and that he should 
send them to be sold by auction immediately, and enter an action 
against him (the defendant) for the difference of value ; but at the 
same time dropping a hint that a compromise might be better than 
exposure in a court of law : this not being acceded to, a writ of 
action was issued on the 27th, just ten days after the first pony 
had been shod. 
A large number of witnesses were called in support of these 
charges, but amongst them not one veterinary surgeon or any one 
competent to give any proper information as to the nature of the 
injury or of the parts injured. 
The allegation that the patent shoe was one likely to produce 
lameness by its application was, during the course of the trial, 
withdrawn by the plaintiff’s counsel. 
For the defence it was contended that the ponies were not lamed 
by unskilful shoeing ; that one was lame before it was shod, and 
the other was not lamed by the shoeing, but the lameness arose 
from other causes. 
Mr. Jervis, in the course of a very able speech (for the defence), 
put the real question in a very plain manner : — 
“ Now, gentlemen, in that state of things, I apprehend his 
lordship will tell you that there are two questions which will 
arise ; in fact, one question only before we come to another part 
of the case, in the event of your deciding that against me, and 
that is this — Did Mr. Rodway, in performing this duty as a farrier, 
bring to the performance of that dut} r — not by himself, for he is not 
the working hand who did it, but by the man who did the business 
for him — did he bring to bear competent skill and reasonable care 
in the performance of that duty ? If he did, from the mere ac- 
cident which may arise from the necessary liability of a nail to 
