394 
VETERINARY JUKlSPRUDENCE. 
had satisfied himself, he stated to me that he had examined 
the eyes with sufficient care to be able to speak positively re¬ 
specting them. That the off or right eye was perfectly sound, 
and free from speck; but that there was a speck on the trans¬ 
parent cornea of the near or left eye. He pointed me to the 
part; and with the eye before us, I told him that there was 
neither speck nor disease existing in the cornea. On returning 
into court I was again placed in the witness-box, and examined 
by the Judge, to whom I related what had transpired between me 
and Mr. Barrett, and again stated, that the eyes were perfectly 
free from speck in them or on them ; that there was not the 
slightest indication of their ever having suffered from disease, 
nor any thing which could lead to a suspicion that they were 
likely to become diseased. 
Mr. Leigh, on being placed in the witness-box, stated in evi¬ 
dence, that he had examined the mare at the time she was sold 
in dispute, and on the Friday previous to the trial. That there 
was a speck on the capsule of the lens of the right or off eye at 
the time of each examination ; but that it was smaller on the 
last examination than on the first; that it was very difficult to 
be perceived, and that no one but a veterinary surgeon could 
perceive it; that he could not positively determine whether it 
obstructed vision or not; and that the near or left eye was per¬ 
fectly free from any speck, either on the lens or on the cornea. 
Mr. Barrett stated in evidence what he had before said to 
me,—that the right or off eye was perfectly free from speck, but 
that there was a speck on the transparent cornea of the near or 
left eye, accompanied with an appearance that indicated pre¬ 
disposition to disease. 
The Judge told the Jury that at one time it was his intention 
to direct them to examine the eyes themselves ; but that Mr. 
Leigh had quite precluded that, by stating that no one but a 
veterinary surgeon could perceive the speck ; that the defendant 
had had what they, the Jury, must have seen was very much de¬ 
sired, viz. the examination and evidence of Mr. Barrett, who 
corroborated the evidence of Mr. Kent, and not only stated that 
he could not see the speck in the off eye, although a veterinary 
surgeon, but said positively that there was no speck in it. 
H is Lordship said, it was true that Mr. Barrett imagined that he 
saw a speck, but that it was on the cornea of the near or left eye. 
And opposed to that also was the evidence not only of Mr. Kent, 
who said that there was no speck on either, but of Mr. Leigh, 
who said that there was no speck on that eye. The result, as 
might be expected, was a verdict for the plaintiff. 
The above is an accurate statement, not of the identical words 
