494 
•CATARACT APPEARING WITHOUT APPARENT 
INFLAMMATION. 
By the same . 
On the 22d of April, 1836, Mr Etches, of Broughall, sent for 
me to look at the hock of a horse that he thought was larger than 
what it ought to be. He had purchased the horse from a Mr. 
John Jones, of Llandyssill, a farmer near Welchpool, who had 
bred him : he was five years old. I told Mr. Etches the enlarge- 
ment of the hock was of no consequence. I then examined him 
all over, and found that he had a cataract in the off eye, at its 
outer angle, the size of a large coriander seed. The eye was per- 
fectly transparent, with the above exception shewed no vestige 
of previous inflammation, and there had not been any thing 
the matter with it whilst in the possession of Mr. Etches, which 
had been about a month. Mr. Jones was applied to respecting 
it, who said he bred the horse, and never knew either of the eyes 
to be the least inflamed or injured. It was agreed to leave it 
solely to two friends who knew each party well, and who decided 
that Mr. Jones should refund five pounds. Now, I am perfectly 
aware that there is great difficulty in deciding when or how this 
cataract was formed, and whether it was preceded by inflamma- 
tion. That there was no apparent inflammation setup in the eye 
whilst Mr. E. had him I firmly believe ; for he is a very particular 
gentleman, and is continually among his horses. On the other 
hand, it is asserted that there was none while in the breeder’s 
hands ; but then we all must admit the possibility of the horse 
having had some injury to or inflammation in the eye during the 
long period that he was in the breeder’s possession, although not 
observed. That there could not have been, nor indeed is it neces- 
sary, repeated violent inflammation in the parts, we may easily 
believe, for there would have been disorganization or discolour- 
ation of the internal parts. Suppose the vender, in this case, 
would not have taken the horse back nor have allowed any thing, 
would it have been possible to have recovered any thing from him 
by law ? I think not. The vender would have proved that there 
was nothing the matter (at least witnesses would have been brought 
forward to swear it) with his eyes up to the time of sale; and who 
would there be to prove, on the opposite side, that it could not 
have occurred whilst in the purchaser’s hands ? I would not, I am 
sure ; and, I fancy, few veterinary surgeons would be found to 
swear that the cataract was formed previous to the sale, after 
what has recently been brought forward on the subject. The case 
Roberts v. Croft was decided otherwise; but would a similar one 
be so now ? It is, at any rate, a case which shews the absolute 
