REVIEW. 
585 
debarred the utility of the numerous excellent works published on this im- 
portant branch of the human practice. Veterinary Jurisprudence is princi- 
pally confined to matters of contract, whilst Human Jurisprudence is particu- 
larly concerned in the lives and liberty of the people. ” 
The several heads of the Essay are, Evidence, Warranty , 
Breach of Warranty , Soundness and UnSoundness. Of these, 
we select a portion only of the first named ; the crowded 
state of our pages precluding our extracting so much as we 
intended doing. We may, however, hereafter recur to the 
subject, it being one not as yet thoroughly ventilated. 
“ EVIDENCE. 
“Veterinary surgeons being so frequently called upon to give their 
testimony in a court of law, it is proper they should understand when 
they are bound to appear, and on what terms ; and it will be found most 
useful to be prepared, by some previous knowledge of the usual course of 
examination, for the difficulties and objections which may arise in the pro- 
gress of it. A witness fully acquainted with the object in dispute, and by 
his particular knowledge well qualified to inform the court on the most 
important points, is frequently rendered miserable, and to a certain extent 
ineffective to the ends of justice, when impressed with the novelty of his 
situation, or sense of the duty he has to perform, and a consciousness that 
what he is about to utter may be obscured, suppressed, or perverted, by 
technicalities, for which he is unprepared with any defence, and mayhap by 
some abuse of practice, in the form of examination, may be placed in a 
painful situation. 
“ Some knowledge of the law of evidence is the best security against 
this inconvenience ; I propose, therefore, to lay down a few general rules on 
the points most likely to occur. 
“Evidence consists either of positive , or of presumptive proof The 
proof is positive when a witness speaks directly to a fact from his own im- 
mediate knowledge ; and presumptive when the fact is not proved by direct 
testimony, but is to be inferred from circumstances, which, either necessarily 
or usually , attend such facts. This evidence is also called Circumstantial 
Evidence. 
“ It is obvious, that a presumption is more or less likely to be true , according 
as it is more or less probable , and that the circumstances would not have ex- 
isted unless the fact which is inferred from them had also existed, and that 
a presumption can only be relied on until the contrary is actually proved. 
In order to raise a presumption it cannot be necessary to confine the evi- 
dence to such circumstances alone as could not have happened unless they 
had also been attended to by the alleged fact ; for that, in effect, would be 
to require, in all cases, evidence amounting to positive proof, but it will be 
sufficient to prove those circumstances which usually attend the fact. 
“ If the circumstantial evidence be such as may afford a fair and reason- 
able presumption of the facts to be true, it is to be received and left to the 
jury, to whom alone it belongs to determine upon the precise force and 
effect of the circumstances proved, and whether they are sufficiently satis- 
factory and Convincing to warrant them in finding the fact in issue. Eor 
the purpose, however, of trying the weight and effect of such presumptive 
proofs it will often be of the utmost consequence to consider whether any 
