156 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
foot. On the next day he sent her to the Veterinary College, 
and Mr. Sewell gave a certificate of her lameness, which was in 
the fetlock. Several witnesses deposed to her lameness. The 
defendant refusing to take her back, she was sold at Dixon’s, 
and the plaintiff now sued for the balance. 
Mr. Sewell stated, that he had examined the mare, and that 
she was afflicted with an ossification of the fetlock, to which rest 
or quiet would give a temporary absence. He also gave a certi¬ 
ficate in proof of her unsoundness. 
For the defendant, Mr. Serjeant Coleridge said, that when 
his client refused to take the mare back, she was sold to a 
Mr. Taylor, and was so far from being lame, that she had been 
hunted several times, and after one particularly hard day’s run¬ 
ning, did not exhibit the slightest appearance of lameness. 
Four veterinary surgeons, viz. Messrs. James and Charles 
Turner, Mr. Mavor, and Mr. Howard, were called, who stated, 
that nothing was the matter with the fetlock, and that the mare 
was perfectly sound; and this was corroborated by several other 
witnesses, who w'ere connoisseurs in horse-flesh. 
Such was the contradictory evidence, that, at the suggestion 
of Lord Lyndhurst, the professional witnesses on both sides 
went again to examine the mare, which was in attendance in the 
court-yard. 
Messrs. Sewell, Mavor, and Turner retire^ for this purpose; 
and, on their return, Mr. Sewell affirmed that the fetlock 
joint was still enlarged.” Mr. Turner said, that in his opi¬ 
nion, the fetlock joint was not enlarged and Mr. Mavor de¬ 
clared, that “ there was no enlargement at all.” Each supported 
his previous testimony with so much warmth (tantaene animis 
equestribus irae?) as to cause great laughter in the court, so 
much so, that his lordship observed, that horse-doctors appeared 
to be as tenacious of their professional opinions as human doc¬ 
tors were. 
Lord Lyndhurst left the case to the jury. There being so 
much contradictory evidence, it was for them to judge of the 
comparative credibility; and that, as the defendant had not 
called Taylor, as he was bound to do, they must get out of the 
business as well as they could. 
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount 
claimed. 
We will try to learn a little more about this modern battle of 
the centaurs. Our veterinary friends would do us a great favour 
by giving us notice of these trials, that we might obtain a faith¬ 
ful report of them. The interest of our art requires it.— Edit. 
