5*0 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Mr. Barktr said he had received that morning a letter from 
Mr. Small, who was not in court himself, as he had no idea that 
such an action could be brought there. 
The case then stood over for some time, other cases having in 
the interim occupied the attention of the court. When the case 
was resumed, the learned Barrister observed, that he feared he 
had not the power of disposing of it. The allegation was, that the 
defendant told a falsehood ; but it was indispensable to shew that 
he had known it to be such. A fraudulent misrepresentation — an 
act of deceit if it be proved — if he gave a certificate of the sound- 
ness of the horse, that he was perfectly sound, and that he knew 
he was not sound ; but although it was an action of deceit, he had 
no jurisdiction, and would order the case to be struck off the list. 
Mr. Quin requested the Barrister to allow the case to stand 
over for a moment. 
When again resumed, 
Mr. Quin re-argued the case, produced authorities, named 
analogies, and quoted some precedents from an old law work, 
(Cunningham’s Law Dictionary, &c.). The learned Barrister 
commented on these authorities, which he did not consider bore 
sufficiently on this case to induce him to change his view of it, as 
this was entirely a question of jurisdiction. 
Mr. Small, it appears, consented to their going into it, however, 
and the proceedings were continued. 
Mr. Quin began de novo, and repeated that this was an action 
brought by Mr. Simon Ryan, of Armagh, merchant, against Mr. 
Matthew Small, veterinary surgeon, for deceit. As in con- 
sideration of a certain fee from Mr. Ryan, paid him in his pro- 
fessional capacity, the defendant gave certificates regarding a 
horse bought from Mr. Lavery, of Lurgan, for the sum of £13.. 10s, 
which he certified as sound on the 1st of May : some days after, 
Mr. Smith examined him, and certified, on the 7th, that he was 
bone-spavined. Mr. Ryan intending to sell the horse on the 14th 
of the same month, on that day Mr. Small examined him, and 
certified that he was perfectly sound ; but owing to the certificate 
of the 14th May, Mr. Ryan could not sell the animal by auction, 
on account of Mr. Small having deceived him, because this con- 
tradictory certificate was given by the defendant, who did not 
know the horse again. An enlargement of the flexor tendon might 
have occurred within the time, but not the bone spavin. On the 
14th of May the defendant deceived Mr. Ryan, by declaring he 
would wager £100 that the horse would never be spavined, and 
that he would at any time get the money he had paid for him. 
Mr. Hugh Lavery proved the sale of the horse on the 6th of 
May to the plaintiff, having had Mr. Small’s certificate that he 
