334 PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OF MERCURY ON RUMINANTS. 
and found exactly the same disorders which I have already de¬ 
scribed. Thus, with the same primitive lesion to combat—the 
same remedy employed—the same immediate result of that reme¬ 
dy—the same absence of all active causes which might produce 
the disease, or be followed by death in both these cases, we must 
naturally recur to the mercurial ointment, and attribute all the 
evil to that. The following case is perfectly convincing :— 
CASE IV. 
I was sent for to examine an ox which coughed very much, 
and by fits, and in whom the respiration was exceedingly labo¬ 
rious. The mucous membranes were red and injected, the pulse 
hard and frequent, and the rumination had ceased since the pre¬ 
ceding day. 1 made every inquiry as to what could have pro¬ 
duced this disordered state. I could hear nothing to which 
I could rationally attribute it, when I was told, as a matter of no 
kind of consequence, that, for some time past, the ox had been 
lousy, and that, to destroy the vermin, they had put round his 
neck a strong worsted cord impregnated with simple mercurial 
ointment. They assured me that the ox had licked this oint¬ 
ment, which the contact of the cord with the manger had left 
there. 
After that Ldid not hesitate to pronounce that this disease had 
no other cause than the mercury. I was happy enough to ob¬ 
tain a speedy cure by means of bleeding, rowelling the chest, 
giving emollient drinks and clysters, and a cooling and mildly 
nutritive regimen. 
These facts appear to me to be so conclusive, that it would be 
fastidious to add any thing in order to prove that it is dangerous 
to use mercurial ointment on ruminants. Nevertheless, as there 
can never be too much evidence in favour of truth, I propose, if 
it is ao;reeable to Messieurs the editors, to send them some fur- 
ther observations on this subject, and particularly some facts ob¬ 
served with regard to sheep. 
(Journal Vet, Theorique et Pratique.) 
VtXtximx^ Snxi^vxutxente. 
HORSE WARRANTY. 
ALLEN AND OTHERS V. PRING. 
This was an action on the warranty of a horse. 
Sir James Scarlett, for the plaintiffs, stated, that the plaintiffs 
were partners in a concern called the Scotch Ale Brewing Com- 
