VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
460 
The latter part of Mr. Turner’s book contains many valuable 
original observations. He considers the claims of Mr. Freeman 
and Mr. Bracy Clark to the discovery of the elasticity of the 
horse’s foot—the too limited scale of the expansive principle as 
explained by Mr. Coleman—the actual security of the one-sided- 
nail shoe, compared with the common one, notwithstanding the 
unfettered state of the foot (there is a great deal of ingenuity and 
truth about this)—the extension of these shoes to hunters, and 
with complete success—the effect of this shoe in the prevention 
or removal of corns—the great advantage of the unfettered shoe 
when the horse is comparatively unemployed—the importance of 
the application of it to the foot of the racing colt—the prolonga¬ 
tion of usefulness, and the increase of speed that would result— 
and the recommendation of them for the hind feet, and especially 
in growing colts;—on these particulars, and most important they 
are, Mr. Turner must speak for himself; there are few of our 
readers who will not have recourse to him. 
FTternmri) gjumpwtreucr. 
Roberts v. Croft.—The Formation of Cataract. 
The following trial took place at the Shropshire Spring As¬ 
sizes, before Mr. Justice Taunton. 
Upon the 23d of June, 1831, the lady of the Rev. N. Roberts, 
a clergyman of large property, residing in Oswestry, purchased 
a grey horse, five years old, from Mr. Croft, a surgeon of inde¬ 
pendent property, practising at Barchurch—price fifty guineas, 
and the horse warranted sound. Upon the evening of the day of 
sale, Mr. Roberts’s coachman discerned a small tumour under the 
horse’s belly, a little forwarder than the sheath, which he at first 
thought to be a wart, but upon closer examination considered it 
something worse ; and the opinion of Mr. Hammonds, a respect¬ 
able practitioner in Oswestry, was taken upon the case: he de¬ 
clared the tumour to be a small hernia, and the horse unsound 
in consequence of it. Next day the horse was returned to Mr. 
Croft, who refused taking him back, except upon a certificate of 
