ON VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
569 
respondents, there cannot be a doubt but that the truest and 
most useful elucidation of the subject is alone to be obtained by 
laying before your readers a detailed account of cases as they 
occur, the evidence given, and the decisions pronounced. By 
laying the case before the profession every one has an opportu¬ 
nity of forming his own opinion upon the subject, and will often 
derive advantages by observing the principles and science which 
has led to the conclusions in the case. When a case is thus 
laid before the public, it is, I presume, a fair subject for criticism; 
but while critics are allowed the prerogative of offering their re¬ 
marks, it is equally legitimate for the criticised to criticise the 
critic. I therefore hope you will allow me to make a few re¬ 
marks regarding a case sent you from Kincardineshire, by Mr. 
Cowie, and inserted in your Number for May last. * I should not 
have thought this necessary had Mr. Cowie given a fair state¬ 
ment of the case, or been less profuse in his remarks and italics. 
Struck, however, by the peculiarity of the printing, and being 
also a witness in the case, I had the curiosity to make some 
inquiry regarding the evidence which appeared to me so incon¬ 
sistent : waiting for such information, I have delayed until now 
forwarding this communication, because I consider it necessary, 
that when a writer undertakes to shew the quackery and errors 
of others, he ought to endeavour to know fully the subject upon 
which he writes, and to avoid quackery himself. Whether Mr. 
Cowie has done this or not, I will not hastily pronounce ; but 
that he is either a young practitioner, or an imprudent writer, or 
both, will, perhaps, afterwards appear. The subject of dispute 
was, whether or not a horse sold by Mr. Hanton, a dealer, to 
Mr. Thom, a farmer, was affected with a disease termed u the 
chords” at the time of sale. To prove that the horse was so 
affected, a variety of evidence was adduced by Mr. Thom, which 
was sufficient to satisfy the judges that the disease did exist at 
the time of sale ; but their judgment, and the opinion of the wit¬ 
nesses, are one and all questioned by Mr. Cowie, who considers it 
“ doubtful whether the horse laboured under the chords at all.” 
Such being the case, it will not, I hope, be considered unfair for 
one of the witnesses to turn round on this self-elected judge, and 
ask, what he knows about the chords ; and to question, whether 
he is not liable to be enrolled in the list of those quacks who 
“ must almost always be situated alike with regard to their 
knowledge of the nature of existing diseases.” “ A quack,” 
says Dr. Johnson, “ is a boasted pretender to arts he does not 
understand : a vain boasting pretender to physic; one who pro¬ 
claims his own medical abilities in public places.” In order 
to ascertain whether Mr. Cowie has any connexion with 
