191 
THE EYE OF THE HOUSE. 
be incorrect, yet I cannot agree with Mr. Cartwright in consi¬ 
dering that the verdict of the jury was, on the whole, erroneous. 
It will, I imagine, be generally acknowledged, that the exis¬ 
tence of cataract, be it great or small, constitutes unsoundness. If 
we do not agree in this, we shall involve ourselves in a mire of 
difficulties and disputes; for though it may not appear to impede 
vision, yet who can say that the opacity will not increase; that 
it positively was not preceded by inflammation; or that it will 
not, in the course of time, produce blindness? The safety of the 
animal affords no guiding rule; for many a one-eyed horse makes 
a clever hunter, and a half-blind hack is often a safer roadster 
than many others, who, with every appearance of possessing 
perfect eyes, start at every object they meet. The smallest opa¬ 
city on the lens must act in opposing the entrance of rays of 
light; and even if, from its appearance, we could ascertain that 
it would certainly become absorbed, it would, I conceive, be 
time enough to pronounce the horse sound when this absorption 
has taken place. 
Mr. Cartwright says that a cataract may take place in a 
month : this I believe ; for I have known it occur in less time. 
Mr. Clay avers the same : but he does not say, nor do any of 
the cases shew, that it can be produced in this short period 
without acute inflammation: and there is no evidence brought 
forward on the trial to shew that the horse had any inflamma¬ 
tion in his eyes between the period he was sold and the day 
he was examined by Mr. Hickman. Then again, no one ima¬ 
gines that when cataract occurs as the sequel of active inflam¬ 
mation, it ever becomes absorbed : if, then, the opacity subse¬ 
quently disappeared in Mr. Croft’s horse, as Mr. Cartwright 
states, it shews that it was not produced by ophthalmia; and 
therefore I see no grounds for supposing, and I do not believe, 
that the horse was free from cataract when sold . 
I certainly cannot admire Mr. Hickman’s letter, as copied 
from the Shrewsbury Chronicle ; for it is by no means creditable 
to the profession, that the opinion of Nimrod should be put on a 
par with that of the Professor’s, on a surgical case; or that the 
reply of any non-professional man should be considered to set at 
rest a dispute on a veterinary subject. But I cannot help being 
much pleased with Mr. Apperley’s answer; for though Mr. H. 
would make him an oracle, he assumes to himself no empiricism 
whatever, but states his opinions candidly, and with no undue 
positivity; and mentions the facts that have mainly assisted in 
forming them. I think that Nimrod’s replies to the three queries 
put to him are perfectly correct; it is the opinion he expresses 
as his “ idea of a cataract that Messrs. Cartwright and Perry’s 
cases shew to be incorrect. 
