CATARACT. 
423 
and expenses, if the Jury gave their verdict in his favoui. 
Verdict for the plaintiff. 
Messrs. Editors,—I forward you an account of the above trial, 
not from any particular interest it contains, but in order that 
you may not be constrained to copy the usually garbled and er¬ 
roneous account given of these horse causes in the daily press; 
but whilst on the subject, I cannot forbear stating how much I 
was surprised on reading in the last number of The Veterina¬ 
rian a paper entitled “ An explanation of the discordant evi¬ 
dence in the case Palmer v. Greville.” It appears to me to be a 
reiteration rather than an explanation of the discordance. 
Mr. Kent, no doubt, makes the case appear as clear as he can; 
but the light that he throws on it only serves to make the 
c< darkness more visible/ 7 The witnesses were, doubtless, ad 
respectable and honourable men ; but it does seem very extraor¬ 
dinary, that such a discrepancy should occur between three 
veterinary surgeons, not on a matter of opinion, so much as a 
question of fact. It teaches us, however, that in future we must 
not place too much reliance even on our own eyesight, and never 
forget the moral— 
« When next you talk of what you view, 
Think others see as well as you.” 
The plaintiff, I should have thought, was entitled to a verdict 
on the ground that the mare was sold in July, and not examined 
till the autumn by a veterinary surgeon, as a cataract might have 
formed during this tune; but I cannot imagine that no speck 
existed in the eye when Mr. Leigh saw it first. I am induced to 
make these observations, because it appears to me that the trial 
in question throws new difficulties in the way of veterinary sur¬ 
geons, out of which I cannot see my way clear; for the case was 
decided by Judge and Jury, not from the state of the eyes at 
the time of sale , but at the period oj the trial, a consideiable 
time afterwards. I think it has been by this time pretty well 
proved, that cataracts do occasionally become absorbed, and I 
will proceed to relate a singular case corrobatory of this doctrine. 
On the 2-3d of May last, I was requested by Captain Ward, of 
Twyford, to see his old mare : she had inflammation in one of her 
eyes, which was dim and very susceptible of light. On opening 
the eyelids, I distinctly perceived a small cataract. On inquiry. 
Captain W. informed" me that some years since she had several 
attacks of inflammation, but not for the last three or foui years; 
and the groom said he had observed the speck for several years. 
I bled the mare from the jugular vein, gave her a dose of physic* 
