492 
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
M-, by 1-'s hostler, by P-S-^—-’s clerk, and by 
Mr. P-, farrier ; and these witnesses, all competent judges, 
state expressly that the horse had all the appearance of being 
done up; ihdXhQ was over-driven, much jaded; and, in short, 
had every appearance of being in extremity from over-fatigue, 
and of being done up by over-exertion. And, indeed, that such 
was the actual state of the horse is admitted by the defendants 
themselves. Now how can the arbiter reasonably or justly 
ascribe this state of the horse, his rapid illness, and his death, 
wholly to disease, with only fair exertion, when it is admitted 
that he got no rest upon the journey home, and that, although 
he knocked up upon the journey, yet he was driven on ? It seems 
ludicrous to ask the arbiter to hold that this state of the horse 
arose wholly from previously existing inflammation, without any 
over-exertion, when the horse actually fagged and knocked up 
upon the road—got no rest at all—and was, nevertheless, driven 
and pressed on in this state of exhaustion and fatigue. It was 
the business of the defendants, when they found the horse jaded, 
to give him a good rest; and if the horse was done up, and un¬ 
able safely to go on, without any fault on their part, they should 
have left him, and hired another horse or a post-chaise, or come 
in by a coach at the expence of the plaintiff. But though the 
horse fagged, and was at last utterly done up, they chose to 
continue driving him at the end of this long day's journey, with¬ 
out any rest, until he was in a state of extremity. That the 
horse was therefore over-fatigued seems to be too plain to admit 
of a doubt; and that he was overdriven is apparent, even on the 
defendants’ own statement of the case. And then, besides, there 
is the opinion of most competent judges who saw him at the 
time. Now, as the horse was in this state when Mr. S-- 
turned the defendants out of the gig when they arrived, they 
had it then in their power to have got a farrier on their part to see 
and attend to the horse; and they were actually at the stable 
afterwards, while P- attended, before the horse died. Hence 
the arbiter must assume, that no other opinion could have been 
formed by any one at the time than that the horse had been 
overdriven. The treatment of him by Mr. P-was unexcep¬ 
tionable, and is not complained of. 
Then he is examined after death. Mr. P-says expressly, 
that he died of inflammation in the lungs, produced by over¬ 
exertion. He was not particularly questioned as to the tubercles, 
but that was the fault of the defendants, if they meant to raise 
a question upon that point. Says expressly, that the horse could 
not have done the journey if there had been previous inflamma¬ 
tion, and that all the symptoms might have arisen, as they often 
