VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
529 
This mixed composition, instanced in the above analysis, and 
which up to this time has not been observed, at least that we know 
of, neither by chemists nor physicians, nor by veterinarians, seems 
to demonstrate that, under certain pathological conditions, the urinary 
organs and the liver are in such reciprocal relationship, that the 
functions of the one may at times compensate for those of the other, 
in a manner which certain physiological and pathognomonic phe- 
nomena have already made presumable to us. 
Transactions of the Central Society of Veterinary Medicine 
of France for 1844-5-6. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Armagh Quarter Sessions — luly 2. 
Ryan v. Small. 
Singular Case. 
Mr. Quin said he appeared in support of the charge brought in 
this case by his client, the plaintiff, for deceit, in having certified 
that a horse, now in the possession of Mr. Ryan, was sound. 
He confided in that representation, and then complained that he 
had been deceived; and that another certificate, stating the reverse 
of the former, had been signed by the defendant on the 14th of 
May. 
Mr. Barker , on behalf of Mr. Small, said that this was an action 
for deceit, and not within the jurisdiction of a civil-bill court, or of 
his honour the Assistant-Barrister. 
Mr. Quin said he did not agree with that opinion. The juris- 
diction was in this case in that court as in the nature of an action 
of assumpsit, the defendant having, for a certain reward, signed 
certain certificates, and deceived the plaintiff. 
Mr. Barker continued to hold his opinion that the civil-bill 
court could not try an action for deceit. There the actions did 
not lie. 
Mr. Quin urged that cases of an analogous nature, such as for 
goods sold and delivered after representing them as sound and 
good, when they proved subsequently not to have equalled the 
description of them, would be deceit, and would be entertained. 
VOL. XXIII. 4 B 
