VI<:TKR INARY JCJRISPRUDENCE. 
•2'^S 
very unskilfully; the fell being’ removed from many parts and 
the joints divided in an unusual way. On a portion of the 
breast was a small fragment of wool adhering to the skin. On 
examination of the skin left in the field, there was found a small 
hole corresponding with it. 
The prisoner, it also appeared, was a weaver working in Mr. 
Stoddart’s factory in this town, and was one of four men 
in the factory usually employed upon weft of the particular colour 
and texture of that found in the field. There was some weft of 
a corresponding quality in his house. 
According to the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, 
the lambs of last year are always called sheep'’ after Martin¬ 
mas; and some of the witnesses were of opinion, that from that 
time until they were two years old, they were called ** sheep” 
without any distinction of sex. None of the witnesses were able 
to state the sex of the animal in question. 
Sir Gregory Lewin objected that the sex of the animal not being 
proved, the prisoner must be acquitted. The words of the statute 
were, ‘^any ram, ewe, sheep, or iambs.” The term sheep in the 
statute was evidently appropriated to the male animal, and such 
must have been the ground of the decision in Rex v. Puddifort, 
where the prisoner was indicted for stealing a sheep, and it proved 
to be a ewe. He was acquitted : so here, the evidence for the 
prosecution not having proved it affirmatively to have been a 
sheep,” failed to that extent. 
His lordship, in summing up, stated to the jury, that in case 
they should be of opinion that the prisoner had been guilty of 
stealing the animal in question, it would be desirable they should 
find whether between the period of an animal of this species 
ceasing to be a lamb, and its acquiring the distinctive appellation 
of sex, there was any interval during which it would be called a 
sheep “only,” without regard to the sex of the animal. 
The jury found the prisoner guilty ; they also found that there 
was no such interval. 
His lordship reserved the point. 
GARDON V . NORTON, SEN. 
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Keating appeared for the 
plaintiff', and Mr. Sergeant Ludlow for the defendant. 
An action was brought to recover the price of a horse (£25). 
A correspondence between the parties was put in and read ; from 
which it appeared that the sum in question was agreed upon, 
and the horse was to be sent to a certain house, with a receipt 
and warranty. The horse was sent, but defendant’s son, who 
