VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
, 419 
circumstances : It appeared that the parties had been 
acquainted for six years, the plaintiff employing defendant as 
a veterinary surgeon, and the defendant dealing with the 
plaintiff for bread. In July last the plaintiff required a 
horse, and asked the defendant to obtain him one which he 
could recommend, and in September the defendant men- 
tioned a mare which belonged to a livery stable-keeper, 
named Baxter. Acting on his recommendation, the plaintiff 
purchased the mare, giving in exchange an old grey horse, 
which had cost him £\ 5, and £19 in money. Shortly after- 
wards certain indications proved that the mare had farcy ; 
and, after being treated for that complaint by the defendant 
in vain, she had to be killed in the following February. A 
few days after the purchase an execution was put in Baxter’s 
premises, and he went away, his estate ultimately paying 
a composition of 5s. 6d. in the pound. The plaintiff 
having proved the above facts, his wife was examined 
to prove the defendant’s recommendation ; and the plain- 
tiff’s man, who drove the animal, gave evidence as to her 
state. Mr. Kent, a veterinar}^ surgeon, deposed that the 
mare was suffering from farcy when he attended her, but 
there was nothing to satisfy him she had it when sold : and 
other witnesses who had been connected with Baxter’s 
stables stated that she had been previous to the sale in a 
stable in which there was another mare which had to be 
killed for the same complaint. 
The Defendant on being called in support of his case, 
stated that he had, as a friend, recommended the mare to 
the plaintiff, advising him to try her in every way to see if 
she would suit his work. After the purchase the plaintiff 
pointed out a slight abrasure, which defendant thought arose 
from a kick, or from the mare knocking against the bales in 
the stable, but he did not think she was in any way unsound 
when he recommended her, and it was not until six weeks 
after the purchase that he knew that the mare had farcy. 
Professor Spooner , of the Royal Veterinary College, and 
Mr. William Manor , veterinary surgeon, -were called, and 
stated they had heard nothing in the evidence for the plaintiff 
which would lead them to believe that the mare had farcy 
when she was sold. Other witnesses were likewise examined 
to prove that the defendant had no knowledge of the cir- 
cumstance. 
Mr. Baron Martin , in summing up, said that there was not 
the slightest pretence for imputing fraud to the defendant, 
but the material question for the jury would be whether 
there was that gross negligence or want of reasonable skill 
