Ffterinary Durigprutmtrr. 
CATARACT. 
Explanation of the discordant Evidence in the 
Case, Palmer v. Greville. 
By Mr . Kent, V S., Bristol . 
Observing, in the No. of The Veterinarian for the pre¬ 
sent month, your report (as copied from the Times) of the horse 
cause, tried at Taunton, “ Palmer v. Greville,” with a query 
annexed; and being the veterinary surgeon who, among the 
plaintiff’s witnesses, swore that the mare’s eyes were good, and 
still remained good, I will shew my readiness to respond to that 
query by a narration of the course of proceedings, and how I 
acted my part in those proceedings. 
I believe it was sometime in July of 1833 that Mr. Palmer 
sold a mare to Mr. Greville for the sum of £18, with a warranty 
of soundness—the money to be paid in a few days after; but in 
the mean time Mr. Greville, fancying the mare to be unsound in 
respect of her eyes, refused payment, consequently legal means 
were resorted to by Mr. Palmer to obtain the amount. In the 
autumn the mare was sent by Mr. Greville to the horse bazaar, 
Bristol, with a request that Mr. Leigh would examine her eyes 
as to soundness; and the result was, that Mr. Leigh gave a certi¬ 
ficate of unsoundness, stating that there was a speck or cataract 
in the off or right eye, and the mare was sold, in dispute, for 
£10. Shortly after, the purchaser, in the company of an em¬ 
ployer of mine, called on me, and asked me to examine the mare’s 
eyes, with a view to decide a trifling wager, in which it was 
agreed that my decision should be received as a proof. They 
never hinted to me that the mare was in dispute. I examined 
the eyes very particularly, and pronounced them to be sound. 
Some weeks afterwards I was told by the parties who brought 
the mare to me that she was in dispute, and that I should pro¬ 
bably be called to Taunton as a witness in the cause. A few 
days subsequently I met w 7 ith Mr. Leigh, and named the cir¬ 
cumstance to him, when I found that he had examined the 
mare’s eyes, and had pronounced her unsound from disease 
existing in them. 
From this time I saw nothing and heard but little of the mare, 
until the Thursday previous to the trial, when, for the first time, 
I was applied to by the plantiff and his attorney, to ascertain 
what my opinion was, and the grounds on which that opinion 
