484 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
tied up to the rack. The manger in question was an ordinary one, and had 
been used by Mr. Wilson, veterinary surgeon. 
Cross-examined. — A restive horse would kick with his hind legs as well 
as with his fore, and there would be greater danger of his getting his hough 
injured by being reversed. He did not attempt to reconcile this with his 
statement of reversing the restive horse. He merely mentioned it as having 
taken place. 
James Fagan, veterinary surgeon, examined. — He had seen horses blis- 
tered before being turned out to grass, and the proper course to pursue was 
to tie them to the rack. He was of opinion that the hair would grow again, 
from a description of the injury. 
Robert Reader, groom, examined. — Was formerly groom with Mr. Josh. 
Ewart. He saw the horse in the next field to the one he had been put in 
after he had been turned out. He had been forced over the fence by the 
other horses. That must have been the case, or he would not have gone out 
of the field. He saw his knee all bloody, and concluded he had knocked it 
against the rail. He told Mr. Lawrence about it, who said he knew it was a 
little done, and sent him to Mr. Thomas, for some ointment to dress it. 
This was the defendant’s case. 
The learned Assessor, in summing up, said the evidence was very con- 
flicting, and it would be for the Jury to weigh it, and state whether or not, in 
their opinion, proper care had been taken. He then went carefully over the 
evidence. 
The Jury expressed a wish to retire, and, after an absence of half an hour, 
found a verdict for the plaintiff, — Damages £5. 
We have said that we consider this to be an erroneous verdict. 
There is no doubt that, while the horse was under the care of Mr. 
Thomas, the animal got blemished — he struck his knee against the 
edge of the manger, and produced some swelling and abrasion of 
the part. This is admitted. Although the profession, according to 
Mr. Lawrence, will “ profess any thing,” Mr. Thomas does not 
attempt do deny this. Was this the proper mode of tying a 
horse 1 Is this the practice of veterinary surgeons generally 1 Is 
it the safest for the horse 1 If so, Mr. Thomas is not amenable for 
any accident that may occur from the plaintiff’s horse having been 
thus tied up. All that is required, is for the surgeon to pursue 
the usual routine in these cases, and to act according to the best 
of his judgment. When the head of the horse is tied up, so that 
he can be removed only a little way from the rack, he is unable to 
get at and to nibble or injure the blistered and painful part. 
First, as to the practice. Mr. Lawrence, an omnibus proprietor, 
Mr. Burns, a livery stable keeper, George Bentham, a groom, Mr. 
Preston, who had been foreman to a veterinary surgeon, and Mr. 
Bagnall, a veterinary surgeon, state, that the proper mode of treat- 
ing a horse was to turn him round in his stall, and fasten him to 
rings at the side of the end of the stall, or to pillars in the centre 
of it. 
On the other hand, Messrs. Briscoe, Ellis, and Fagan, veterinary 
surgeons, state that the usual course was to tie the horse, up to the 
