SOUNDNESS IN HORSES. 
455 
say, a sound state) leaves the law extremely indefinite in regard 
to the quantum of labour the animal could perform previously, 
and the degrees of safety and facility with which he could per¬ 
form it; in the next place, there are diseases which do not detract 
from any one of these powers or capacities, ( mange is one— gland¬ 
ers, in certain stages, another); and, in the third place, we know, 
as practical men, that these qualifications are as much dependent 
upon condition as disease; inasmuch as there are disorders horses 
are subject to, with which, in condition, they could do more work 
than they could if they were out of condition and in perfect health. 
I take my leave of these legal interpretations of soundness, to 
enter-on the consideration of the opinions broached by veterinary 
authorities. First stands Mr. Lawrence. In the ingenious pam¬ 
phlet from which I have already borrowed some quotations, and at 
the beginning of the first chapter, we find these words: “ The causes 
which constitute unsoundness in horses may be classed generally 
under the three following heads, viz. Lameness, Imperfection in 
Sight, and Defective Respiration, or Diseased State of the Lungs. 
There are, however, two or three other imperfections, which can¬ 
not with propriety be included in the above series, such as Crib- 
biting, Wind-sucking, Shivering or Nervous Agitation, and il lea- 
vritns or Temporary Apoplexy .” These are the positions with 
which Mr. Lawrence sets out; and he speedily follows them up 
with a distinct consideration of cases of the different kinds of 
lameness and disorders; from the perusal of which I find I may 
come to the deduction, as Mr. L.’s rule of guidance, that lame¬ 
ness and disease are required to be actually present to constitute 
unsoundness. * 
Of such a conclusion, as far as it goes, neither the truth nor 
the justice can be disputed ; the only fault I have to find with it 
is, that it does not go far enough to meet my views. If I mistake 
not, I shall be able to show, that a horse free both from disease 
and lameness may yet be unsound. I am willing to admit, that 
the line between soundness and unsoundness would be clearer and 
better defined, could we draw it as proposed by Mr. Lawrence; 
but I apprehend it would not be found to reach the ends of many 
cases of practice. 
From the recorded opinion of Mr. Lawrence’s I pass to the 
consideration of Mr. Coleman’s, which I find myself only able to 
get at through the reports ol a recent law-suit. The Professor is 
reported to have stated in evidence, that, u whenever there exists 
[alteration of structure and function ol a part, and these alterations 
interfere with the duty of the whole, the animal may be considered 
unsound;” which physiological definition so pleased the judge, 
yn the occasion on which it was delivered, that, in summing up 
