COMMENTS ON THE CASE OF BARRETT V. PREECE. 243 
or indirectly, nor did I see him till after he had examined the 
mare, and then I said to him, “ If you have any doubt about 
the case, say so, as I have a great dislike to horse causes, and 
will endeavour to persuade Mr. Barrett not to proceed in the 
matter.” 
As regards the trial, all the S( _prima facie ” appliances were 
in favour of the defendant, who is an auctioneer in extensive 
business in Shrewsbury. The judge holds his monthly court 
in that town, and is a gentleman of high character and stand- 
ing, and before whom Mr. Litt has previously given evidence 
without attempting to impugn either his horse or legal know- 
ledge. The advocates, on either side, are two brothers in the 
regular habit of practising in that court. The witnesses, with 
the exception of Mr. Carless, who saw the mare only on that 
morning, were from Shrewsbury, or the immediate neigh- 
bourhood ; and the jury, which was summoned by request of 
the defendant, were Shrewsbury people. On the other hand, 
the plaintiff resides in Wales, twenty-five miles from the 
place of trial, is a perfect stranger, and the only witness 
connected with Shrewsbury was Mr. Crowe, who has for 
many years been a respectable practitioner there. 
Under such circumstances, 1 ask, if there was a bias at all, 
would it not in all probability have been in favour of the de- 
fendant? The offer to produce the mare was not made till 
after the plaintiff’s case was completed, and when it was 
nearly dark* It was objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel 
on the ground that it ought to have been made before the 
trial commenced. And in this the judge acquiesced, but left 
it to the jury to decide whether they wished to see the mare or 
not. They replied that they would be guided by the evidence. 
I should have had no objection to have gone with Mr. Litt 
even then to have re-examined the mare, although they had 
had nearly a month to properly attend to her feet, to have 
convinced the jury of the difference between a sound and 
unsound frog, by merely showing them the frogs of the hind 
feet and those of the fore. Mr. Carless said there was a 
slight discharge from the frog. He would not say that they 
were sound, but as sound as nine-tenths of the frogs of horses 
of the mare’s age. 
Mr. Litt censures me for being, as he supposes, influenced 
by the law as laid down by Baron Parke, he might have 
added Ellenborough, Alderson, and others, and acted upon 
by all the judges. That I did know the law I readily admit, 
and if Mr. Litt was cognizant of it, it is a pity he had not 
advised his employer “ that a sound horse meant a sound 
horse,” and by that means have kept him out of a scrape. 
I can understand that Mr. Litt should feel somewhat an- 
