VETERINARY' MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
113 
any point, and more particularly on a case of incontestible iden¬ 
tity. We see with astonishment that that which is permitted in 
one part of France is reprobated in another; that the regulations 
on a subject of every day commerce bear no resemblance to each 
other in two neighbouring provinces ; nay, that they are often 
different in the same province, and even in the same canton. 
With the exception of two or three diseases that are acknow¬ 
ledged to constitute unsoundness in almost every country, the 
greatest diversity reigns: for example,—roaring and founder, 
which would afford ground for action as unsoundness in Artois, 
are not included in the warranty in the province which borders 
on it—Cambresis. Thick wind, for the discovery of which a delay 
of forty days is allowed in the latter province, has only fifteen in 
the former. Farcy is unsoundness in Brittany, but not in the 
neighbouring province of Normandy ; and, on the other hand, 
the customs of Normandy make mention of some diseases of the 
horse and the sheep which are completely forgotten in those of 
Brittany. In Brittany the duration of the warranty for glanders, 
broken wind, and founder, is fifteen days; it is thirty days for 
the same diseases in Normandy ; nine in the Isle of France ; 
eight only in Burgundy ; and forty in Franche Comte. But I 
forbear more citations of this kind, which I could multiply to 
the greatest extent. 
It has been said that differences in the respective localities 
ought to produce differences in the customs; and that, if the 
law were uniform, it would be often unjust. This argument, the 
only plausible one that has been adduced to establish the ne¬ 
cessity of preserving the customs, and which, perhaps, would be 
decisive if applied to other commercial matters, has not the same 
weight when examined with reference to the purchase and sale 
of domestic animals. Hear what one of our colleagues, M. 
Bernard, of Toulouse, says on this point. 
“It is admitted among veterinarians that the nature of the 
malady varies little with difference of locality; these influences 
may render a disease more or less frequent, or modify its 
severity, and even its duration; but they cannot change its 
nature when considered with reference to veterinary jurispru¬ 
dence. They cannot render a disease apparent whose symptoms 
are obscure, nor that non-contagious which may be communi¬ 
cated. It cannot prevent such diseases as immobility, epilepsy, 
and ophthalmia, from being altogether of a serious character, and 
incurable, and rendering the animal that is affected by them 
more or less unfit for the service for which he is destined.’’ 
In fact, how can it be explained, that, in two districts so near 
and so similar in their local influences as Artois and Cambresis, 
