VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE—EMPIRICISM. 567 
as he gave similar evidence : the dread of a charm or curse para¬ 
lyzed his tongue, and sufficiently explained his strangely con¬ 
tradictory story. Another man was a pertect fanatic. He de¬ 
clared that no one but Lantier should ever treat his animals; 
and that if he lived twenty years longer he would enjoy the 
confidence of himself and his children. 
The pleadings being heard, and the witnesses examined, the 
tribunal, says the writer of this curious history, did us the honour 
to demand an answer to the two following questions, Whether 
it was possible by the simple inspection of a portion of hair cut 
from an animal to tell under what disease he laboured ; and what 
would be the effect of administering to ahorse, through his nose, 
an irritating medicine like the decoction of gratiola. 
We answered these questions to the best of our power, and 
endeavoured to remove the superstitious notions which it was 
evident the magistrates possessed. The attorney general ( pro - 
cureur du roi) described Lantier as capable of every kind of 
imposition and swindling, and required the application of the 
405th Article of the Penal Code against him; but the tribunal 
acquitted the cure of the great parish ot the malpractice alleged, 
and condemned Sebille in the costs. W e cannot do better, for 
the edification of our confreres , than to give the judgment ver¬ 
batim:— 
“ Whereas Sebille has acknowledged that Lantier has exer¬ 
cised the veterinary art during many years, and has acquired 
some reputation in the exercise of it; and that, attracted by 
that reputation, he had consulted Lantier respecting his cows, 
many of which had aborted ; 
“ Whereas Lantier, consulted by Sebille with regard to his 
cows, advised him to give a drink composed of an infusion of 
gratiola, and a powder called the lieutenant’s powder, and that 
Lantier offered his services to Sebille for the preservation or the 
health of his horses ; that he ordered him to bring some of the 
hair of the horses, that he might judge of their state-that after 
having examined the hair he counselled him to employ the same 
means that he had proposed for the cows, but prescubed the 
administration of the drink by the nose that this medicine 
was administered by Sebille, or his servants, but not in the pre¬ 
sence of Lantier-that of the six horses three are dead, and 
the remaining three are in a bad state-that Lantier furnished 
nineteen bottles of the infusion of gratiola, and a packet of the 
lieutenant’s powder, and demanded of Sebille for these remedies 
the sum of sixty francs, of which Sebille has actually paid 
twenty francs; 
“Whereas Lantier could not be summoned before the correc- 
