VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
495 
ultimately a splint might not interfere with the action of the 
horse, it would in the process of formation occasion lameness. 
It might be produced by a blow or a strain, causing at first 
heat and tenderness, and consequent lameness for a time ; 
and he was of opinion that in this way the lameness was to 
be attributed to the fall on the 1st of January. The previous 
history of the horse during the period when it was in the 
defendant’s possession was proved in considerable detail, and 
it appeared certainly that in the spring of 1853, from being 
“ thorned,” or some other cause, he fell very lame, and under- 
went a good deal of medical treatment, but that he recovered, 
and went through the following hunting season very cleverly, 
and had continued to do his work well up to the time of the 
sale. Since the sale by auction the defendant had got pos- 
session of him again, and the plaintiff had called upon the 
defendant to produce him for the inspection of the jury, but 
this had not been done, and the case therefore depended 
entirely upon the conflicting evidence of the medical and 
other witnesses. 
The learned Judge summed up the evidence on both sides 
as it bore upon each of the two alleged causes of unsound- 
ness, but intimated his opinion that the defendant’s case 
ought not to be prejudiced by the non-production of the 
horse, as probably an inspection by the jury would not 
enable them to decide the case so satisfactorily as if they 
were guided by the evidence of experienced and competent 
witnesses. 
The trial occupied the whole day, and the jury having 
retired to consider their verdict, and remained in deliberation 
some time, conveyed to the learned judge an intimation that 
they were not likely to agree. 
His Lordship informed them that unless they could agree 
they must remain there all night. They were ultimately 
discharged without giving a verdict. — Times. 
STUBLEY V. WOOLEY. 
Communicated by Mr. 11. Metherell , M.R.C.V.S . , Spalding. 
This case was recently tried in County Court at Spalding. 
The plaintiff purchased of defendant, in the market, a cow, 
which he (defendant) verbally warranted “all right.” On 
driving her home, the plaintiff noticed her to cough several 
times, and found afterwards that she was a delicate feeder. 
Being consulted, I certified to the existence of a chronic 
