358 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
symptoms, and subsequently instituting a searching exami- 
nation of the lesions found upon death, have enabled him to 
arrive at a far more satisfactory conclusion of the true 
pathology of the pest than had hitherto been obtained, even 
by those who had for years been practically acquainted with 
it. The governors were much gratified to find that not only 
did the Royal Agricultural Society unanimously agree in the 
selection of their officer for this important duty, but that the 
other two National Agricultural Societies of Scotland and 
Ireland concurred in the choice which had been made; and 
thev are also very desirous of stating that the report which 
the inspector has published on the subject has excited a 
lively interest throughout the Continent, and is regarded as 
a valuable addition to veterinary literature, by the new light 
it has thrown upon the nature of this mysterious and destruc- 
tive cattle pest. 
“ In presenting, however, their annual report, the governors 
are wishful not to extend its dimensions, by refering to their 
several endeavours to do justice to the object sought to be 
obtained by the union of the two institutions, because they 
believe that these are equally as familiar to the council as to 
themselves, and they would, therefore, merely conclude by 
assuring the council of their full determination to use all the 
means at their disposal to elevate veterinary science in its 
application to the diseases of all domesticated animals. 
<c Signed on behalf of the governors of the college, 
“ Richard Beauvoir Berens, V.P.” 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT. 
February, 1858. 
HORSE WARRANTY CASE. 
This was an action brought by Mr. George Jones, surgeon, against Mr. 
James Napier, horse dealer, Liverpool, to recover the sum of £37 10s., 
the amount of damages plaintiff alleged to have sustained by reason of breach 
of warrant on the part of the defendant. Mr. Wym Williams, of Denbigh, 
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hime, of Liverpool, for the defendant. 
The case, as stated by the plaintiff’s advocate, was as follows : Plaintiff, in 
the month of October, went over to Liverpool to inspect some horses of 
defendant’s, with a view of purchasing one. He selected one, but declined 
to purchase without a trial and an examination by a competent “vet.” This 
