106 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
there may have been a remonstrance that the man came too late, 
yet it was. done. It appears to me, in point of law, that if a per- 
son called upon at an unseasonable time, if he undertakes to do it 
without declaring he would not be responsible, he undertakes to 
do it with the same responsibility as he would do at any pro- 
per time. 
“ Now, with respect to the evidence that the mischief could not 
have continued down to the month of November, I do not think 
that that affects the question of the verdict, unless you think it 
shews that no pricking at all had done any mischief. The ten- 
dency of that evidence is to shew that the cause of the lameness, 
from July to November, was either from some other cause totally 
different, or that there was some other mismanagement.” 
Verdict for the defendant on both counts. 
EXCHEQUER. 
Monday , January 12, 1846 (Sittings in Banco.) 
[From “ The Sun.”] 
Collins v . Rodway. 
This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, who 
was an attorney’s clerk, to recover damages from the defendant for 
injuries done to a couple of horses while they were entrusted to 
the defendant for being shod. The case was tried before the Lord 
Chief Baron at the recent sittings, when evidence was adduced on 
the part of the plaintiff to prove that defendant had been guilty 
of gross negligence in shoeing two valuable horses* of the plaintiff, 
and that considerable injury was inflicted upon the horses by such 
want of care and attention. Nevertheless, the Jury found a verdict 
for the defendant, and Mr. Humfrey now moved for a rule nisi to 
shew cause why the verdict being against evidence should not be 
set aside, and a new trial had. Their lordships, however, all 
concurred in the opinion that the verdict was not at variance with 
the evidence, in so far as some of the witnesses protested that the 
injuries did not arise from a want of care and attention in the 
shoeing, but rather from a disease of long standing, from which 
they had been suffering before they came into the possession of 
the defendant. 
The rule was therefore refused. 
* These “ valuable horses” were shewn in the course of the trial to be two 
ponies worth together less than £20, one costing £8 or £9, and the other 
was offered for sale for £10. 
