570 
ON VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
such a class, it is necessary to inquire for what purpose the 
case was communicated ? Was it with the simple view of 
bringing a particular case before the profession, or to promote 
a further knowledge of veterinary jurisprudence ? if so, why not 
give an impartial report ? It is, however, self-evident that the 
case was brought forward for no such purposes; but that, on the 
contrary, it was mainly intended to shew the knowledge Mr. 
Cowie had acquired, and how he could expose, by his conclusions, 
the ignorance of his contemporaries. Phrenologists have dis¬ 
covered that there is an organ of caution in the brain, and Mr. 
Cowie may have this organ ; but in the communication I allude 
to, his other propensities have most certainly predominated, and 
he has hence been led to do an act of injustice, which is either 
inconsistent with honesty or of that degree of knowledge which 
a man ought to possess who attempts to arraign the ignorance of 
his neighbours. Any one reading over the case, as reported by 
Mr. Cowie, must certainly conclude that the practitioners in his 
part of the country are a set of the grossest quacks that ever 
pretended to physic; but this is no difficult matter, in any case, 
if the reporter chooses to give such a garbled statement as Mr. 
Cowie has done ; and although it is not my intention to attempt 
to exonerate my fellow witnesses or myself from the professional 
blunders we may have committed, I cannot allow such a grossly 
partial and garbled statement to appear, without endeavouring 
to place the case in its true light, and exposing the motives of 
one who would wish to traduce his neighbours. I have been 
more particularly induced to do this, because one of the witnesses, 
Mr. D. Smith, Fettercairn, formerly a pupil of mine, is made by 
Mr. Cowie’s report to give opinions which are sufficiently absurd ; 
but which, when stated as was given in his evidence, will appear 
most materially different, and his reasons sufficiently plausible. 
Of the other witnesses I know nothing but their names; but 
as I find their evidence also mis-stated, I shall shew, as shortly 
as possible, wherein this exists. The first inaccuracy I observe 
is, that Mr. Cowie reports the horse as having got worse in two 
days after he was taken home; while the evidence says that for 
ten days he continued in the same state as he was observed to be 
on the morning after he was purchased: this is obviously material 
in forming an opinion of the case, because it marks, in some 
considerable degree, the progress of the disease, pointing out 
the strong probability of its having existed prior to the sale, and 
at the same time corroborates the evidence given by some of the 
witnesses. 
The first witness Mr. Cowie attacks is John Beattie, who is 
stated as a compounder of specifics for the cure of all diseases: ’ 
