GERMAN VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE—SHEEP. 503 
the damages sued for by the plaintiff, and adduced the following 
as his defence ;— 
1st, That the action ought not, in point of fact, to have 
been brought against him, as the injury was received from the 
shepherd G. 
2d, That, had it not been for very great carelessness and over¬ 
sight on the part of Herr T. or his people, the disease never could 
have spread so far; that it required but a slight degree of care and 
forethought to point out the prudence and necessity of separating 
all the infected sheep from the rest of the flock, whereby the exten¬ 
sion of this disease Avould have been in a great measure, if not alto¬ 
gether, prevented. 
But from the testimony of a person of the name of G., it appears, 
that the infected sheep were separated from the others, for he says, 
“ I observed one day, I cannot now say exactly when, that several 
sheep were separated from the flock, confined in the paddock, and 
limping very much. I inquired of K., one of the shepherds, what 
was the matter with them, and he replied that they had a disorder in 
the cleft of the hoof, and that the sheep brought hither by G. had 
communicated this complaint to them.” The separation may not, 
however, have taken place soon enough, or have been maintained 
with sufficient strictness and care. 
The complainant considers both these pleas to be futile :— 
1st, because the loss was caused entirely by the assertion of 
Dr. H. that the sheep were sound. 
2dly, Though he does not deny that the further spreading of 
the infection might possibly have been prevented by the separa¬ 
tion of the sheep, still he maintains, that the only blame Avhich 
could attach to his people is, that they did not acquaint him with 
the disease when it first appeared, but kept it from his knowledge 
for nearly a month. But here it must be remarked, that the shep¬ 
herd K., as is before stated, mentioned the appearance of the 
infection to the house-steward, or clerk, on the 30th of November. 
The following questions were therefore drawn up, and laid 
before the supreme court of judicature for judgment to be given 
on them:— 
(a) Whether or not the sheep formerly appertaining to G., and 
brought by him from A—, were at that time suffering from the 
disease of the cleft of the hoof; and also, whether they were free 
from it at that period (the 2Gth of November) when Dr. H. ex¬ 
amined them, and warranted them as sound; or whether it is pos¬ 
sible that this disease might have existed at that time, but so con¬ 
cealed, as that no outward symptoms of it were visible 1 
(h) Whether the disease, which so soon afterwards made its 
appearance among the flocks of the plaintiff, really was the dis- 
