293 
fWiarrlUnfiu 
HORSE CAUSE. 
Tolner v . Rogers. 
The Attorney-General (\\ ith whom were Mr. Archbold and Mr. 
Steer) stated the case for the plaintiff’, and gave in evidence the 
following facts:—The plaintiff’, an attorney, residing in the 
King's Road, Chelsea, had employed the defendant as his vete¬ 
rinary surgeon, and in the month of March in the last year, the 
latter was attending to a pony of the plaintiff 's. On the 29th 
of that month the defendant, being at the plaintiff 's house-, sug¬ 
gested that the mare in question should be bled, telling the plain¬ 
tiff’ that it was advisable to bleed horses in the spring and fall. 
The mare was nearly thorough-bred, and was at that time in high 
condition. The plaintiff, observing that she was in perfect 
health, objected to have her bled; but on going out of town on 
the following day, he left word with his groom, that, if the de¬ 
fendant should call in his absence, and should think it right to 
bleed the mare, he might do so. The defendant called on the 
31st of March, and bled the mare, taking from her about six 
quarts. He desired the groom to put her on extra clothing, 
and to keep all the ventilators of the stables closed. The groom 
attended to these instructions, the mare being put into a three- 
stall stable, in which were two ponies and a horse. A few hours 
after the bleeding, the groom perceived a dulness in the mare, 
which continued during the next day, and she ate but little. The 
defendant sent a ball, which was given to her, but for two or 
three days successively she continued getting worse, there being 
a great heaving at the flank, with shortness of breath. On the 
3d of April, the defendant not having come in the mean time, 
the groom went to him, and requested his attendance. On his 
coming and looking at the mare, he said she had caught cold. 
He attended her regularly twice a-day, with the exception of one 
day, from the 3d to the 9th of April, and administered medicine. 
On the 9th, the plaintiff ’s groom (the plaintiff’being still absent 
in the country) suggested the propriety of taking a little blood 
from her. The defendant said she was too weak to bear it, and 
expressed his opinion that she would not recover. The mare, at 
that time was labouring under symptoms of inflammation ;"and 
the defendant asked the groom whether he had told his mis¬ 
tress that too much blood had been taken from her? The groom 
replied that he had. On the plaintiff’s return home, Mr. Jump- 
son, a veterinary surgeon, of Judd Street, Chelsea, was sent lor, 
