LIABILITIES OF VETERINARY SURGEONS. 
455 
decided that the horse died from suffocation. The practitioner 
did not take refuge behind any plea, did not even seek for 
absolute proof, but admitted that the draught was the proba¬ 
ble cause of death. The owner demanded the full value of 
the animal, and, in spite of all representations, decided to seek 
compensation in the court. The veterinary surgeon, in the 
full belief that he was not liable, nevertheless to avoid incur¬ 
ring expense and loss of time, not to speak of the annoyance, 
compromised the matter for a considerable sum. 
Our object is not to discuss the law relating to either of 
these or to similar cases. What we desire to insist upon is 
the fact, that a man, smarting under an unanticipated loss, 
arising from no act on his own part, is commonly excessively 
anxious to attach blame to the man by whose act he has 
suffered, and this totally irrespective of the simple justice of 
the case, as our quoted instances may serve to show. The 
law distinctly exonerates us, unless we have been guilty of 
“ culpable negligence,” by our own act or the act of our 
agent who represents us, and for whose proceedings we are, 
of course, responsible. This clause is well known, but the 
difficulty is that the man who has lost his horse, apparently 
in consequence of any act of his veterinary surgeon, is inclined 
to a much more extended interpretation of the clause than the 
said attendant will allow 7 , and hence an appeal to the law 
courts is the only method of deciding whose view is correct. 
Precisely at this point occurs the defect in our constitution 
of which we complain—the absence of any properly arranged 
association before whom a disputed point might be placed, 
and who, in the event of a decision in favour of the veterinary 
surgeon, should be in possession of funds to defray all legal 
expenses. This association w’e appeal to the profession to 
establish at once; a small subscription from the members 
would suffice. The election of proper officers from the most 
influential members would be easy enough, and the whole 
affair is settled. In the future, any member threatened with 
legal proceedings would at once, as a matter of duty, submit 
his case to the committee, who, deciding in his favour or 
otherwise, would determine his course. If it were apparent 
that the mischief had resulted from his negligence, he would 
be advised to compromise ; if not, he would be instructed to 
defend any action that might be brought against him, the 
association defraying all expenses. 
With such protection, the number of actions would, w r e 
feel convinced, be materially lessened, and many commencing . 
practitioners, and even established ones also, be prevented 
from sacrificing a principle to their own convenience or to 
