454 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
I do not think it would have been possible, permanently, to remove 
the disease. I observed no traces of any such disease, and from 
my experience I do not believe that it ever existed. 
Cross-examined. — There was no appearance of disease in the 
foot having ever existed. There were no appearances to induce 
me to believe that the foot had ever been diseased. 
Mr. O'Malley having replied, 
His Lordship summed up. He referred to the letter that had 
been written by the plaintiff to the defendant after the horse had 
been returned by Sir E. Travers, and put it to the Jury, whether 
it would not have been a more sensible course if the parties had 
said to each other “Do not let us be spending money in bringing 
persons from Eye, and from London, which will amount to more 
than half a dozen cobs are worth ; but let us call in three persons 
to examine the horse, and see whether it is sound or not.” The 
plaintiff had made an application which might have ended in some 
such arrangement being come to ; but the defendant had at once 
assumed a hostile tone, and said — “ It is of no use writing to me 
about the horse, I can have no further correspondence upon the 
subject. I have sold the horse to you; and, if he is unsound, he 
has become so in your hands.” The defendant had thus precluded 
any such arrangement being come to. The Jury had heard the 
evidence, which certainly was of that contradictory character 
usual to cases of the kind. But it was his duty, as Judge, to put 
it to the Jury, whether, when a respectable man was called in and 
asked to give his opinion as to the soundness or unsoundness of a 
horse, he was not entitled to more credit than a person who was 
asked to give his opinion, upon the express understanding that he 
was to be a witness in the case. Mr. Henderson, a respectable 
practitioner in London, had been brought upwards of 100 miles to 
give an opinion with respect to a horse that was not worth more 
than £20 — little more, in fact, than the amount of his expenses. 
He was brought not only to give an opinion as to the soundness of 
the horse, but also to give evidence in the case. No doubt that if, 
in the exercise of his judgment, he considered the horse unsound, 
he would have said so; but when the Jury found respectable 
practitioners on the other side, who saicl the horse was unsound 
at the time, then they could only decide between the conflicting 
statements by taking into consideration those minute circumstances 
which arose in the case, and which tended to turn the scale one 
way or another. His Lordship then briefly recapitulated the facts 
of the case. 
The Jury , after a few minutes’ consideration, returned a verdict 
for the plaintiff, damages £22, the full amount claimed. 
The Court was much crowded during the trial of this case, 
which concluded the civil business of the Assizes. 
