VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE— BROWN V. ELKIN. 351 
At no distant period I will enter more fully into this subject. 
At present I have only to say that, in my opinion, and, I be- 
lieve, in his own too, Mr. Fryer has gone out of his way to com- 
mit a somewhat uncalled-for attack upon me. I confess that 
I cannot compliment him or his Essay in the language of the 
Secretary ; but I feel towards him no ill-will, and shall be happy 
to render him any service that may, perchance, fall in my power. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Brown v. Elkin. 
To the Editor of “ The Veterinarian .” 
Dear Sir, — Never having seen any account of this trial but 
what has appeared in the pages of The Veterinarian, the 
following opinions are given on the faith of its being an accurate 
report. 
Yours, See. 
E. A, Fri EN D. 
I am induced to notice this case for two reasons : one is the 
palpable injustice of the decision of the Court in this particular 
instance, and the other is the extraordinary effect it must produce 
upon the opinions of veterinary surgeons in future examinations 
of the horse. If this is to remain the established law on the sub- 
ject, all cases where there is the slightest departure from the ac- 
knowledged order of perfection in structural arrangement must 
from henceforth be pronounced unsoundness, without any refer- 
ence to the future capability of the parts to perform their necessary 
duties ; — an injustice which all veterinary surgeons will at once 
perceive the effect of. There are numerous cases of this kind 
occurring in the examination of horses by veterinary surgeons, 
where it has hitherto been considered quite sufficient, even by the 
most deliberate and attentive, to point out the probability of 
danger, and where the warranty of soundness recommended has 
been supposed to be an adequate guarantee for the risk. But a 
new order of things must now be established, and all doubtful 
o f • 
cases must from this time be unsound ones. 
