FlSHEll r. JOYCE. 
in 
state of disorganization for the purposes for which they were created, and 
organized for another purpose for which they were not required. It is said 
that bloodvessels had shot through them, and that they had become har¬ 
dened like liver, and unfit for the ordinary purposes for which they were de¬ 
signed, and that this state may exist without being apparent; that the horse 
may have no cough; that he may keep fat, but that still he might not be in a 
state in which a person had a right to expect him to be. That although he 
might do slow work, if taken care of, yet if he were used laboriously, or 
should take cold, acute inflammation would come on, and death in all pro¬ 
bability speedily ensue. 
Now, gentlemen, if you are satisfied that this state of disease existed on 
the 26th of February, then, undoubtedly, no matter what disease the horse 
died of, the warranty was broken. We find that on the 9th of March this 
horse passes into the possession of Mr. Kent on trial. Now, he is a man 
who has had great experience as a veterinary surgeon, whose business it is to 
examine horses, to examine their soundness; and you would say it is quite 
incredible that Mr. Kent, who would be very careful whilst getting his guinea 
or half guinea for his certificate, would not be more than ordinarily careful 
while buying a horse for which he was to pay <£60. The defendants say that 
it is quite incredible that Kent should not have discovered this latent disease. 
These are the two cases. 
Now’, 1 do not think that it is of any great importance to discuss the 
question of identity, bearing on the evidence of the first witness, for the 
issue depends mainly on the plaintiff’s evidence. 
Pickard, Virgall, and Starkie are called; they do not profess to have any 
science, but merely speak to the treatment. Pickard says at the time he 
was sold he had a cough, and that it was pointed out as a nasty cough,— 
that it did not excite much attention, the defendant merely observing that lie 
would give a warranty. lie is then taken home by Virgall and Starkie, and 
they say that he under their treatment had two nitre balls and two mashes, 
and their statement is that the horse did not get much better under their 
treatment, for Virgall says “ It did not appear to benefit the horse much,” 
which statement certainly does appear rather inconsistent with the other 
testimony, for it would appear that Fisher had him under medical treatment 
more than we could judge from the plaintift ’s counsel or evidence. 
From these persons it passed into the care of MUsoin, who is Mr. Kent’s 
servant, and he says,— \_The Judge here read Milsorris evidenced] 1 will ob¬ 
serve that, when he says the horse was only ill four days, there is some little 
discrepancy between his evidence and Mr. Kent’s. This is all the evidence 
of persons who pretend to no science, and as far as their testimony goes we 
are unable to discover any cause of death. 
Hut now we conic to the evidence of ^Messrs. Kent, Leigh and Poole Leigh, 
who, except some evidence by Mr. Kent with reference to the treatment of 
the horse, speak merely to scientific points. 
VV’e take Mr. Kent first, and I will first read to you what he says about 
the treatment of the horse [.vee Mr. Kent's emdence~\. You perceive that 
though he gave him medicine he did not think he was seriously ill until the 
Hth, and from that I suppose the servant means to date his illness beginning 
at the Hth, and ending at the 12th. 'J'liis, however, is all Mr. Kent’s account 
of the mode in which the horse was treated, and we now come to the evi¬ 
dence of science. And, gentlemen, there is no doubt that upon points of 
science we have men of the very highest order coming upon particular sub¬ 
jects to different opinions, and yet all professing their opinions to be based 
on actual experiments. There is no doubt that evidence of science is the 
most dangerous kind of evidence, and undoubtedly jurors arc very much iu 
the power of men of science. I do not know that 1 can illustrate this much 
