I 
NISBETT versus KENT. 79 
we will not too severely censure Mr. K., although we are sorry 
that he should probably have brought this business upon himself. 
At all events, he would have been enabled to repel with more 
effect, the evidence of the old illiterate farrier, Davis; and to 
state that on the day of trial which would have been of para¬ 
mount importance. So far, and no farther, does any part ol the 
transaction appear to reflect on the conduct of Mr. Kent. We 
believe that “ the operation was properly performed, and this,” 
as Mr. Kent judiciously observes, “ was the turning point be¬ 
tween plaintiff and defendant.” 
In the account of the trial, Mr. Kent is unnecessarily, and, we 
think, injudiciously, and unjustifiably severe. Even old Davis 
does not deserve all that is said of him, much less Mr. Leigh. 
The allusion to Mr. Williams's personal appearance, is in 
sadly bad taste; and the publication of the opinion of the junior 
counsel respecting Mr. Williams's opening speech, incautiously 
given, and evidently meant only for the private ear, will admit of 
no defence. We will not, however, press this matter further. 
Mr. Kent has suffered (in pocket) more perhaps than he de¬ 
served, and much more than we wish. Even the successful ter¬ 
mination of a suit at law costs somewhat too much. In profes¬ 
sional reputation, we trust he will not, because we feel that he 
ought not, to suffer. 
The case, on the wKole, is interesting to the profession; and, 
for this reason, we recommend the perusal of Mr. Kent's pam¬ 
phlet. The subject is well treated, and the several bearings of the 
evidence commented on with considerable talent. 
We propose to those who are now bona fide pupils under pri¬ 
vate practitioners, or students at the Veterinary College, the fol¬ 
lowing subject for a Prize Essay :—“ The Anatomy and Physio¬ 
logy of the Stomach of the Ox.” 
Papers with an initial and motto to be sent to the Editors, 
(post paid), on or before the 10th of October. 
