VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
463 
of any thing being the matter with his eyes; had sponged his 
eyes, as Mr. Croft always had his horses’ eyes sponged when they 
were dressed. 
Mr. Croft’s groom never saw any thing amiss with the horse’s 
eyes before he was sold. After he was returned he had three 
feeds of corn a-day, and no exercise, as his master was afraid of 
some accident happening to him if he was taken out. He began 
to rub his tail, and he thought his eyes looked a little watery. 
Does not know the day of the month that Mr. Hickman saw the 
horse, but it was, at least, three weeks after he was returned. Mr. 
Hickman advised the horse to be bled. He sponged the eyes of 
all Mr. Croft’s horses regularly. 
Mr. Clay examined the horse on the 27th of June, but was 
then only asked his opinion with regard to the rupture, which 
he did not consider unsoundness. Nothing was then said about 
the eye, and he examined no further than he was requested to 
do. Saw the horse several months afterwards : there was a 
small cataract in the near eye, about the size of a pin’s head. 
Has known cataracts form without active inflammation, or with¬ 
out any previous apparent disease of the eye. Has detected 
small cataracts when the owners had not the slightest suspicion 
of any disease in the eye, and who declared that no previous 
inflammation had ever been observed ; and he thought it not im¬ 
probable that a small cataract, like the one in question, might 
form within the time that the horse was sold and when the 
disease was first discovered. Keeping a horse upon high feed 
without exercise is very likely to bring on disease of the eye. 
Mr. Justice Taunton, in summing up, said, that it was a 
question entirely for the jury to consider, whether the cataract 
could have formed between the sale and the period at which it 
was discovered. If they believed that the disease could not 
have been produced within that time, they must find for the 
plaintiff 1 ; but if they believed that the cataract could have formed 
after the sale, then they must find for the defendant, as it was 
not enough for the plaintiff to shew that the unsoundness did most 
probably exist at the time of sale, but it was incumbent upon 
him to prove that this must of necessity have been the case. 
The jury, after some consultation, found a verdict for the 
plaintiff. 
