VETE1MN A UY JURISPRUDENCE, 
485 
rack. To this may be added, that every acknowledged authority 
in veterinary literature inculcates this practice, and that veterinary 
surgeons — a hundred to one — pursue it. 
Next, as to the safety of the practice. If it were not, generally 
speaking, safe, it would not be thus taught and practised. It pre- 
serves the blistered part from being injured. The only danger is 
the striking the knee against the manger, and bruising it, and that 
happens so rarely, that with regard to nine veterinary surgeons out 
of ten, their whole lives will pass without any serious inj ury being 
thus inflicted. While, if the horse is reversed, he is more likely to 
injure his hind legs by striking against the manger, and thus get- 
ting capped hocks; and there is more danger of his coming down 
upon his knees. 
It was the overwhelming preponderance of security, — the as- 
surance of the almost impossibility of danger, which attended the 
practice of tying the head of the horse to the rack — that induced 
Mr. Thomas to exclaim, when told by Mr. Lawrence that the 
knee was injured, “ If it be so, it is my stupid lad who has let him 
kick his knee against the manger.” They go together to the 
stable — the bruise is evident enough — not one word, however, is 
said of the halter being improperly tied to the rack, — the defendant 
finds no fault with his apprentice, either then or at any future time ; 
but the cause of the injury of the knee, and the ground of the 
future action, is, that the head of the horse was tied to the rack, 
instead of the animal being reversed in his stall : and on this point, 
and contrary to the recommendation of every veterinary work, and 
the experience and the practice of almost every veterinary sur- 
geon, the Jury give a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. 
As to the episode with regard to the further injury of the knee 
after the horse had been dismissed by Mr Taylor, and turned into 
Mr. Lawrence’s fields, it is almost too ridiculous to occupy a mo- 
ment’s attention. 
Robert Reader, groom to a gentleman not connected with either 
the plaintiff or defendant, sees the horse in a field next to that 
into which he had been turned. The knee was all bloody, and he 
concluded that the horse had knocked it against the rail which 
parted the two fields. He told this to Mr. Lawrence, who said 
that he knew it was a little done, and sent, him for some ointment. 
The counsel for the defendant had pressed Mr. Lawrence on 
this point, and that gentleman, in order to prove that no harm 
could have been done, produced in court a stake 16 inches long, 
and which he said was the height of the rail: he also deposed 
that the rail had not been knocked down. If we were inclined to 
retaliate on Mr. Lawrence, or, if we judged of his brethren by his 
conduct on the day of trial, we should say that “ coach and omni- 
VOL. XII. 3 s 
