VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
703 
directed the defendant to sell her at Smithfield for £3 10s., at the 
same time saying that he was not to refuse £3, rather than bring 
her home again. His belief at that period was, that though the 
mare might be labouring under an attack of cold, there was not the 
least indication of glanders. Had he thought the latter had been 
the case, instead of sending the mare for sale, he should have had 
her killed. The witness then proceeded to say, that although the 
mare had been put into a stable with other horses whilst he had 
had her, not one of them had caught the infection. As a proof 
that he had no idea of the mare suffering under such an attack, 
he had offered to bet a sovereign to a shilling upon it. He did not 
see any symptoms or indications of the disease until the post- 
mortem examination had taken place, and then he certainly did. 
These indications, however, were too high up the nostrils to be 
seen prior to death. 
Cross-examined. — He had tried the mare at omnibus and other 
work, but had found her useless. Knew nothing about the nostril 
having been greased with the view of disguising the character of 
the discharge, and, what was more, he had not seen any of the latter. 
He first sent the mare to Smithfield three days after he had had 
her. He had not had her examined by a veterinary surgeon before 
she was taken to Smithfield. 
A veterinary surgeon of the name of Ainslie stated, that he had 
examined the mare prior to her death, but had not found any indi- 
cations of the disease. He had seen a more violent and a worse 
discharge of mucus from the nostrils of a horse which had arisen 
entirely from cold. 
Cross-examined. — On the post-mortem examination they had 
found the evidences of the disease. There were also tubercles on 
one lobe of the lungs ; but similar usually resulted from age in a 
horse. With reference to the contagiousness of the disease, he did 
not entertain the opinion that it was so much so as others did. 
H. Daws, another veterinary surgeon, said he had examined 
the mare on the Friday evening after she had been taken to the 
knacker’s, but had been unable to discover any symptoms of 
glanders, although he must say he regarded it as a case of suspicion. 
He had never seen her until that evening, and, therefore, if the 
defendant had stated that he had examined her prior to her being 
taken to Smithfield, he had said that which was not correct. 
Mr. Laurie replied. 
The Recorder then summed up, and said that the simple ques- 
tion now was, had the defendant, when he offered this mare for sale 
in the public market of Smithfield, known that she was so glandered'? 
That she was so was quite clear from the evidence. Well, then, 
if the jury were of opinion that he had, their duty would be to 
