MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
489 
'Mr. S——. M-is quite positive that the horse was hired 
to go to B-, and to he put up there; and even if it had 
been said that the object had been to look at a farm beyond 
B-^ the arbiter does not think that this was fair dealing 
with S-; for, according to the truth of the case, B-had 
no more to do with the day’s journey than any other place upon 
the whole road, as it was never intended to be the resting-place 
or the limit of the journey. To mention B-- at all was, in 
truth, mere deception ; C—- was the proper inn to mention, 
and was accordingly the intended place of destination and of rest. 
The reference to B- was the more improper, because the 
last part of the journey was the most severe. The arbiter does not 
hold, however, this part of the case to be decisive. If the horse 
had been well treated, he probably would not have suffered. But 
there was deception beyond doubt, and the journey was longer 
than that contracted for. The circumstance now adverted to 
shews a consciousness on the part of the defendants that the 
day’s journey was to be a severe one. And it certainly required 
due consideration for the horse, as no one can dispute that forty- 
four miles with a gig is likely to be a sufficiently trying day’s 
work for a horse not known to the party driving him. The arbiter 
thinks the treatment at B-, in going out, certainly injudi¬ 
cious on a cold frosty morning ; whether the horse got chill or 
not on that occasion it is difficult to say. But if the horse fed 
well afterwards, probably he had not suffered much; although 
the arbiter suspects that he was left longer at the door of the 
inn than the hostler seemed to think, both because there was no¬ 
thing to fix the time in the lad’s recollection ; and the very direc¬ 
tion to wisp him down, certainly implies an intention to stop 
longer than merely to give some meal and water. But though 
the cold meal and water so early in the day, and possibly the 
time he stopped, was not judicious, yet there is, perhaps, not 
ground positively to ascribe to this part of his treatment any 
such chill as to lead to the conclusion that the horse Iiad then 
been seriously injured, if the fact was that he had fed well at 
C-, although the arbiter thinks it probable that the horse 
was put out of heart. But then there is something very singu¬ 
lar about the next part of the case. 
The horse seems to have been sufficiently rested at C--, 
and to have been well treated there. The lad who was in the 
stables says, that the horse ate more than a feed and a half of 
corn ; in other words, that he had eaten very heartily, leaving very 
little of the second feed, and that he started quite fresh ; and 
that he cannot recollect speaking to his master about the horse 
not eating, and also that nothing struck him as to any disincli- 
