456 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
cause of death in this case 'vas inflammation of the larynx, trachea, and 
lung’s; the average dose for a horse is from fifteen to forty grains of croton 
farina; five drops of croton-oil are fully equal to a drachm of aloes; the 
dose of aloes is from four to eight drachms; I agree with Mr. Hickman in 
his opinion that Mr. PercivalPs book is a standard book on the treatment of 
hordes. 
Re-examined .—I think the quantity of croton oil stated to have been given 
could not have produced the effects shewn in this case; in my judgment 
it must have been some other mixture that was administered; I think croton 
oil, if not properly diluted with some bland fluid, might have produced 
external excoriation; if properly diluted, it would not. I think the effect 
shewn in this case must have been produced by some medicine that was not 
croton oil, unless a much greater quantity than fifteen drops had been ad¬ 
ministered. 
Mr. Joseph Phillips^ of New-Lodge .—^Was quarter-master of the troop of 
yeomanry in which Mr. Robert Fisher is cornet; knew the horse in ques¬ 
tion ; it was a very fine horse, with good action ; in my judgment it was worth 
from £40 to £50. 
Cross-examined .—If I had known the horse to have been fired and spa¬ 
vined, and fourteen or fifteen years old, it would, of course, reduce his value 
in my estimation. 
Tliis was the plaintiff’s case. 
Mr. Richards (with whom was Mr. Lee) then addressed the Jury for the 
defendant, and contended that the evidence was such as to prove clearly 
that the death of the horse arose from inflammation of the larynx, &c. 
which could not have been produced by the medicine administered, unless 
some of it passed the wrong way and caused irritation and consequent inflam¬ 
mation, and in that case it was an accidental circumstance, for which the 
defendant was not liable, and whose general skill was best evidenced by the 
fact that plaintiff and his father had employed him in his profession for a 
long series of years. 
The learned Judge summed up, and in doing so observed, that the defend¬ 
ant would not be liable in this action if they believed the death of the horse 
to have arisen from inflammation caused by natural causes or by the medicin_e 
having some of it gone the wrong way; nor if they believed it to have been 
from any accidental or inadvertent administration of medicine not suitable 
to the complaint: to be justified in finding a verdict for the plaintiflTin this 
action, they must be satisfied that the death of the horse was occasioned by 
the want of skill in not administering proper medicine, or by unskilfully or 
negligently administering the medicine if it was proper: this unskilful or 
negligent administration might be either by the defendant or his servant, for 
whose act^ he was liable, provided that the Jury were satisfied that such neg¬ 
lect or want of skill existed. 
After consulting a short time in the box, the Jury returned a verdict for 
plaintiff, with £10 damages. 
