41 
Vttevinaw HWrfrtral $\ivi$pv\ititnct. 
ON THE FORMATION OF CATARACT. 
Roberts v. Croft. 
On the 23d of June, 1831, the Rev. N. Roberts of Oswestry, 
purchased a five-years old horse from a Mr. Croft of Baschurch, 
surgeon, and which was returned as unsound, in consequence of 
a very small hernia existing near the umbilicus. 
On the 4th (or 18th) of July following, Mr. Hickman, a ve¬ 
terinary surgeon from Shrewsbury, was sent for by Mr. Croft, 
to examine him respecting the hernia, but which he did not con¬ 
sider to constitute unsoundness. On farther examining him 
Mr. H. found that he had a small cataract in the near eye, and, of 
course* pronounced him then unsound. Soon after this, an action 
was brought by the purchaser against Mr. Croft for the amount 
(50 guineas) paid for the horse; and the trial took place at the 
Shrewsbury assizes in the month of March 1832, when a verdict 
was given for the plaintiff in consequence of the cataract. The 
point respecting the hernia was not entered into. A report of the 
trial is given in the fifth vol. of The Veterinarian, page 
461. 
Mr. Hickman, Mr. Collier of Chester, Mr. Richards and 
' Mr. Crowe of Shrewsbury, veterinary surgeons, all gave evidence 
on the trial, “ that a cataract never forms in the horse except as 
the consequence of repeated inflammation in the eye.” 
Mr. Clay, of Shrewsbury, was examined for the defendant, 
who said, that cataracts may be formed in a fortnight or three 
weeks; and that he has known many instances where they had 
been formed in less time : that he has known them to be formed 
without active inflammation, and without any previous apparent 
disease of the eyes; and has detected them when the owners had 
not the slightest suspicion of any disease in the eye, and had 
declared that no previous inflammation had been observed. He 
(Mr. Clay) thought it not improbable that a small cataract like 
the one in question might form between the time that the horse 
was sold and that when the disease was first discovered. The 
period between the horse being purchased and returned appears 
to be disputed, Mr. Hickman asserting in his evidence that he 
believes it was on the 4th of July, whilst others say it was on 
the 18th of July; so that, according to the first statement, 
there must have been only ten days, while, according to the 
VOL. VII. E 
