VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
289 
defendant is a colonel in the Grenadier Guards. It appeared that upon the 
occasion of the review at Woolwich, on the 21st of January, in honour of 
the marriage of the Princess Royal, Colonel Burnaby had hired the mare in 
question, which had formerly belonged to Prince Albert, and which was 
purchased by the plaintiff at a sale of his Royal Highness’s cast-stock, and 
was represented to be a great favorite among the plaintiff’s customers, that 
the Colonel had ridden her at the review, and afterwards sent her Lome 
with one of his servants. When he arrived near New Cross, the mare 
suddenly began to rear and plunge, and eventually fell with great violence, 
doing herself very great damage ; and for the injuries that she thus received 
the present action was brought to recover compensation, it being alleged 
that the defendant’s groom was drunk, and that it was through his negli- 
gence and want of proper care and caution that the injuries had been sus- 
tained. The defence to the action was, that there had been no negligence 
on the part of the groom ; and Mr. Mavor, Mr. Burley, and other eminent 
veterinary surgeons were called, who expressed a confident opinion, from 
the symptoms spoken to in the evidence, that the mare had been attacked 
by epilepsy or “ staggers,” and that the mischief she sustained was to be 
attributed to this cause, rather than to the one suggested on the part of 
the plaintiff. 
Mr James was about to sum up the case for the defendant, when the 
jury interposed, and said they considered it unnecessary for him to do so, 
as they had made up their minds that the defendant was entitled to the 
verdict. 
Mr. Hawkins insisted upon his right to reply, and Mr. James therefore 
made a brief summing up on behalf of Colonel Burnaby, urging that he had 
completely established that he was in no wise responsible for what had 
occurred, and that it was clear from the scientific evidence that had been 
adduced for the defendant, and also from the admissions that were made 
by the plaintiff’s own witnesses, that the mare had received the injuries 
from being suddenly attacked by the malady referred to, and not from any 
misconduct on the part of the defendant’s servant. 
Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury in reply; and the learned judge 
having briefly summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. 
IMPORTANT TRIAL.— VERDICT £1000. 
SALE OE CATTLE AFFECTED WITH PLEURO-PNEUMONIA. 
KILDARE SPRING ASSIZES. 
Before the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland. 
Malcolmson v. M’Donotjgh. 
Mr M’Donough, Q.C., stated the case for the plaintiff. It became his 
duty to state the various facts and circumstances from which he asked them 
to find a verdict of substantial damages. The action was one of considerable 
importance to the parties concerned, and the public in general. It was par- 
ticularly important, as the defendant would seek to involve the case in some 
difficulty, arising from matters, not of fact, but of opinion. No question 
was raised as to the existence of the warranty. It was a fact which the de- 
fendant could not deny. If a single heifer were diseased, the party could 
bring an action, and recover damages for it ; but in the present case the 
XXXI. 39 
