494 
MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
to Mr. D-, the arbiter cannot possibly lay aside the opinion of 
P-and W-, who had no doubt that the over-fatigue did 
produce the appearances, and adopt Mr. D-’s opinion, that 
there had been inflammation of one or perhaps two days’ stand¬ 
ing. When there is an amply suflicient cause to produce rapid 
inflammation, which Mr. D-himself admits must have ope¬ 
rated to a very great extent, and when he admits that the pre¬ 
vious inflammatory cold could only have been slight, as the 
horse otherwise could not have done the journey, the arbiter 
thinks it would be rather too strong a, conjecture to throw aside 
the over-exertion, which is admitted to have operated to a certain 
extent, and to hold that there had been a prior cause, upon the 
opinion of one out of the three inspectors. The arbiter can 
easily understand that many people may not have seen inflam¬ 
mation spread so rapidly as others, and that may be the situation 
of Mr. I)— ; but Mr. P—, and Mr. W—, the former a witness 
of undoubted experience, and the skill of the latter vouched for 
by the defendants by their employing and examining him, had 
seen instances of more rapid inflammation,'and they have no doubt 
that the horse died from over-exertion, and that the appearances 
in the lungs were fully accounted for from this cause alone. And 
as the cause was a very severe one, and the horse, when brought 
home, was in a state of the utmost extremity, the opinion of the 
two inspectors seems much more reasonable than that of the third. 
But taking it as a mere question of evidence, the arbiter does not 
think that there is room for him entertaining any different opi¬ 
nion from that of the two inspectors; and that, perhaps, the 
case of the defendants was knocked up the moment the testimony 
of their own witness Mr. W-was given. 
Upon these grounds, the arbiter has no difficulty whatever of 
holding the defendants liable for the value of the horse. 
As yet there has been no direct evidence of the value of the 
horse; but there is ample proof that he was a very excellent, service¬ 
able horse, well known to be such, in considerable request, and fit 
for a variety of work. The price put upon him by the plaintiff 
seems to be extremely moderate. But the defendants are entitled, 
if they think fit, to lead evidence upon this point; and they will 
intimate therefore, within four days after the arbiter’s notes, 
whether they mean to undertake a proof as to the value .of the 
horse, or dispute the value of £40 put upon it by the plaintiff, 
with legal interest from the said 2d of January. 
The expences of the submission and decreet arbitral the plaintiff 
will be entitled to as a matter of course. 
