CATARACT AND HERNIA. 
424 
and desired the eye to be kept wetted. I heard nothing more of 
the case till July 7th, when the mare was brought to my forge to 
be shod. I examined her eyes, and could perceive no speck of 
any kind, or impediment in vision whatever. 
Quere.—Was this a case in which the absorbents were roused 
into action by the stimulus of inflammation, and the cataract was 
thereby removed ? 
But let us suppose that this mare had been sold in May last, and 
brought to me to be examined by the buyer, and that I had pro¬ 
nounced her unsound, and that an action was the consequence. 
I should have stated in court, that I had examined her, and had 
found a cataract; but against me, perhaps, there might be arrayed 
two or three veterinary surgeons, who might have examined the 
mare within a short period, and pronounced her sound : the re¬ 
sult would probably have been, that the Jury would have given 
their verdict against my employer, and have charitably considered 
that, if there had been any impediment in vision about the case, 
it existed in my eyes instead of the mare’s. 
CATARACT AND HERNIA. 
Mr. Cartwright, in reply to Mr. Hales. 
At the time that the trial took place respecting the cataract in 
Mr. Croft’s horse’s eye, I, as will be seen by referring to my letter in 
the Shrewsbury Chronicle, was of opinion that cataract did not take 
place without previous inflammation, and was surprised to read 
such evidence given by Mr. Clay on the trial; I therefore was 
desirous of bringing it forward for discussion, and asserted “ that 
I had no doubt that the columns of the paper would be open 
for what any person might have to say on the subject.” The fol¬ 
lowing week the editor, in his notice to correspondents, says, 
“ The letter by 6 Amicus ’ is too personal . The writer whom Amicus 
professes to answer, affixed his real name to his communication, 
and therefore we ought not to permit him to be anonymously 
and personally attacked.” Who wrote this letter I will leave for 
your readers to judge. The next week the editor, in again 
noticing his correspondents, says, “ If written with more accuracy 
we have no objection to insert the letter from Ellesmere, on 
the horse cause; but the printing it in its present form and 
language would injure the writer.” The author of this letter I 
well know. Thus the affair dropped for the time. 
Fourteen months after (Mr. Hales says, “ not long after”) the 
publication of my letter in the paper, I called on Mr. Hales (hav- 
