41<» 
Fetnumup ghimprutiencr. 
Shackle v . Coggs. 
We are glad that we are enabled to lay before our readers a more 
detailed account than has hitherto appeared of this singular trial. 
The discrepancy among the witnesses is not a little amusing; but, 
after all, we believe justice to have been fairly done. 
The horse was bought, early in the last spring, at Downham, 
in Norfolk; and on his journey to town the plaintiff’s servant 
thought that he went a little tenderly, yet on his arrival said 
nothing of it to his master. The horse, however, had not been in 
the plaintiff’s stables more than two or three days, before he was 
decidedly lame. He was taken to three veterinary surgeons, who 
pronounced him to have the navicular joint disease, and conse¬ 
quently was unsound. Professor Coleman afterwards examined 
him, and could not deny that he was lame, but denied that 
the horse had the navicular joint disease, and thought the lame¬ 
ness might be of a temporary nature. The plaintiff wished to 
return the horse ; the defendant demurred, and issue was joined. 
Mr. John Field examined the horse at the latter end of March 
and the beginning of April. When he first saw him he was 
decidedly lame on the near fore foot. Afterwards he was nearly as 
lame on the off foot; and then the lameness returned to the near 
foot, so decidedly, that it could not possibly be mistaken. It was 
disease of the navicular bone of the near foot. He had no 
doubt about it. The lameness in the off foot arose from bad 
thrush ; and both the diseases must have existed at the time 
of purchase. He was sure that it was a navicular case, not from 
any one circumstance or symptom, but a combination of them. 
The near foot was smaller than the off; there was a full half-inch 
difference in the shoes: it was more concave than the off—very 
concave; there was considerable heat about the foot; there was 
a peculiar action, which it was impossible for him to describe, but 
which was always indicative of disease of the navicular bone. He 
put much dependence on this peculiarity of gait, or putting the 
foot to the ground. In some instances, as in shoulder cases, 
it was almost the only guide; and there was here a total absence 
of any superficial cause of lameness. 
On examining the horse closely there were some suspicious 
marks about the fetlock, as if the operation of neurotomy had 
been attempted to be performed. There was a long mark or scar 
on the inner side, nearly in the situation of the nerve ; and there 
