VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 483 
treatment, was when turned round in his stall, to prevent him from hurting 
himself. 
Cross-examined. — It was not common to tie a horse to the rack under 
such treatment, as to reverse him. The practice was to reverse him. 
Thomas Preston examined. — Had had 45 years’ experience among horses, 
and had been foreman to a veterinary surgeon 13 or 14 years, and had 
also been servant to Mr. Briscoe. He had both blistered horses, and had 
seen them blistered by the farriers. He had seen tfyem blistered by Mr. 
Wilson, Mr. Waring, and Mr. Briscoe ; and the horses were always tied re- 
versed in the stalls, by order of those veterinary surgeons, or their appren- 
tices. 
Cross-examined. — Had lost his place under Mr. Briscoe, because folks 
liked to see fresh faces. He took a little drink sometimes ; but no gentleman 
ever complained about him. 
This was the plaintiff’s case. 
The following witnesses were called for the defence : — 
Henry Middlehurst, apprentice to Mr. Thomas. — He remembered the 
horse coming to Mr. Thomas to be blistered. He was tied to the rack with 
two halters, and secured as they generally secured them. He remembered 
the horse receiving an injury about the 10th day, when tied to the rack. He 
received an abrasion of the hair and the cuticle — a delicate insensible mem- 
brane covering the skin. The hair would grow over that injury. If the skin 
had been cut deep, it would not. He had not been blamed for the injury. 
Cross-examined. — Mr. Thomas had blistered horses since, and had tied 
them up to the rack in the same way. He had only reversed one since, which 
was for an injury to the shoulder. 
Henry Bradshaw, the other apprentice to Mr. Thomas, examined. — Had 
not been blamed for the injury the horse sustained. 
Fennell Briscoe, veterinary surgeon, examined. — Had been in practice 20 
years, and during that time had been in the habit of blistering horses. The 
usual course pursued, was to tie them up to the rack. He had never in the 
course of his practice been in the habit of reversing horses. He thought a 
horse by being reversed would be more liable to accidents ; he would be more 
liable to injure his hind legs by striking against the manger, and producing 
what was commonly called a “ capped hock.” In all cases of blistering the 
fore legs, in his judgment as an experienced veterinary surgeon, the proper 
mode was to tie a horse to the rack close up to the manger. If a Horse was 
reversed there would be much more danger of his coming down on Ms knees. 
From the description of the injury, in his judgment the hair would grow 
again over it. 
Cross-examined. — He thought there would be no less danger of a horse 
hurting his knees by being reversed when blistered. 
Mr. Ellis, veterinary surgeon, examined. — The proper mode of treating 
horses when blistered on the fore legs, was to tie them to the rack. He was 
of opinion, from the description he had heard of the injury, that the hair 
would grow over it again. 
Cross-examined. — He had not seen the horse, he only judged from de- 
scription. 
— Hughes examined. — Had been in the employ of Mr. Lucas five years, 
and had charge of the sick horses, and the blistering department always came 
under his care. The proper way to treat horses in such cases, was always to 
tie their heads to the rack. He never knew but one instance when a horse 
was reversed, and he was a very restive high-spirited horse. He was of 
opinion, from a description of the injury, that the hair would grow again, 
lie never knew of a horse cutting his knee in his life from having his head 
