MR. Coleman’s bust. 
225 
sloughing ensued. The owner brought his action against the 
veterinary surgeon for mal-practice; and although it could not be 
proved that there was any necessary connexion between the use 
of the hammer and the subsequent inflammation of the vein— 
although it was highly probable that from some inflammatory 
tendency, or other unknown cause, this same disease of the vein 
would have ensued had the blood-stick been used (for the ad¬ 
justment of the force used in order to accomplish the purpose 
would have been the same, and a person skilled in his profes¬ 
sion, and aware of the power which it was actually necessary to 
employ, might have used a brick-bat as safely as a blood-stick), 
the defendant was saddled with heavy costs and damages, and, 
in fact, eventually compelled to quit that part of the country. 
^‘Another of my pupils was consulted with respect to a horse 
that had inflammation of the eyes. He recommended among 
other things a rowel under the jaw. His employer could not 
afford to pay any great sum for medical attendance, and my pupil 
told him that if he would call as he passed, which was almost 
daily, he would dress the rowel for him with pleasure; nay, once, 
or twice, or thrice, he went considerably out of his way, and did 
what was necessary to the rowel. Several days, however, passed, 
and the owner did not think proper to call with his horse; and, 
from some of those causes, of which we know so little, gangrenous 
inflammation was excited in the rowelled part, and the horse 
became slandered and died. An action was commenced against 
O 2^ 
him for negligent treatment; and although it might justly be 
disputed whether the veterinary surgeon is compelled to give 
balls, or to move and clean rowels, any more than the practitioner 
of human medicine is expected to administer his own draughts, 
or to dress the blisters which he orders (and in this case it was 
from mere kindness that he had offered occasionally to attend 
to the rowel), the jury, listening to the opinion of a farrier, who 
swore that the glanders was produced by the neglected rowel, 
considered he had not done his duty, and returned a verdict 
against him. 
** 1 am proud to repeat it, that these are the only two instances 
that 1 know of in which actions have been broimht ajiainst veto- 
O O 
