VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
305 
He had exostoses or bony enlargements of the pastern bones 
of the off hind leg. There were two enlargements, one on 
either side of the pasterns, nearly meeting in the front, form- 
ing an irregular ringbone. The enlargements had been in 
existence for a length of time. They were attended with 
only a slight degree of lameness. Recommended that the 
horse should be fired, but my recommendation was not 
acted upon. Did not see him again until the July following. 
I then found his pasterns nearly covered with a mass of 
fungus. The common integument had been destroyed, and, 
to a great extent, the coronary ring, also. Was told that the 
injury had been occasioned by the application of “ Major’s 
British Remedy.” I pointed out the improbability of my being 
able to do anything to make the horse again serviceable, but 
on being requested to do what I could for him, I excised as 
much of the fungus as it was practicable to do, leaving the 
edges of the skin healthy, hoping, by so doing, to lessen 
somewhat, the amount of blemish, and perhaps fit him for 
slow work. When I first prescribed for the horse he was 
worth from £30 to £40. He is now almost worthless. The 
active ingredient in e( Major’s British Remedy,” I believe to 
be sulphuric acid, a highly corrosive and dangerous com- 
pound ; if used at all, it ought to be greatly diluted. 
Cross-examined — Have never used the “ Remedy” myself. 
Have known it to be used in two other cases besides the one 
now before the court, in both of which it made fearful 
blemish, and in one lameness ; the animal being sound before 
its application, and lame afterwards, and continued so for 
some months, when I lost sight of him. 
Mr. Hodgson addressed the court for the defendant. The 
“ remedy” was required to be used with care and judgment, 
and was not to be applied to the same extent under all circum- 
stances. There were also conditions, as mentioned in the 
pamphlet, necessary to be attended to, and if they were not 
observed, a cure could not be expected. The plaintiffs 
coachman had in this case not strictly observed the direc- 
tions, and he also erred in believing there were two ringbones, 
and accordingly had applied one sixth of the bottle to each 
side of the foot, whereas, as there could be but one ringbone, 
he certainly ought not to have applied more than half that 
quantity. Another circumstance that my client complains 
of is, that he was not informed of the state of the horse till 
two months after the application. It was used about the 
latter end of March, and it was not until the 18th May that 
the plaintiff acquainted him w 7 ith the condition of the animal. 
This, Mr. Major considered very unfair. It was frequently 
xxvm. 39 
