VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 619 
Mr. Collier. —Yes, my lord, and it is not a pleasant prospect for 
us (laughter). 
Mis Lordship. —No, indeed ; it is a perfect mob of witnesses. 
Mr. Collier. —Yes, my lord, that is the Devonshire for it; but the 
“mob” are my friend’s witnesses, I believe (laughter). 
Mr. Karslake. —Well, we shall see by and by. 
Mr. Buller opened the pleadings. James Routley was the plaintiff 
and Henry Hoskins was the defendant. The declarations stated that 
the defendant, by warranting certain sheep to be sound, sold them to the 
plaintiff, but they were not sound, alleging also certain expenses. The 
defendant pleaded not guilty, and on that plea issue was joined. 
Mr. Collier, Q.C., stated the case to the jury. He said that this case 
involved an inquiry into the intricate subject of sheep rot, which the 
jury would have to investigate that day. The plaintiff lived at Alder- 
combe Farm, Kilkhampton, Cornwall, and the defendant was a farmer 
of Boscastle. On the 22nd of November last the plaintiff bought 
twenty-four sheep of the defendant, at Boscastle Fair, and the question 
for the jury was, whether these sheep were sound or rotten at the time 
they were sold. The sheep were warranted to be sound at the time of 
the sale, and, as far as he (the learned counsel) could gather from the 
pleadings, the warranty was not denied. The facts were these :—The 
plaintiff went to Boscastle Fair on November 22nd, and he met the de¬ 
fendant’s son, who showed him a number of ewes, for which he asked 
from 39s. to 40s. a-piece. The plaintiff offered 35s., and the deal ended 
in the plaintiff giving 3/s. 6d. a-piece for a flock of twenty-four. 
Young Mr. Hoskins warranted them sound in every respect. Something 
was said about the danger of rot, and young Mr. Hoskins warranted them 
against that, saying that they had no rot in their part of the country. 
The plaintiff was satisfied with his bargain at the time, as the sheep ap¬ 
peared to be in tolerable condition, and they did not show any 
symptoms of being diseased. He trusted to the warranty, and gave 
directions to have them taken to his farm. They were taken that night 
to the farm of plaintiff’s brother John, and the next day they were 
taken on to plaintiff’s farm. Now he (the learned counsel) should show 
them, beyond all doubt, that the sheep were infected with rot, and if 
they were infected with the disease at the time they were sold, although 
none of the symptoms appeared at the time, yet the defendant would be 
liable to a breach of warranty. With respect to this disease of sheep 
rot, he (the learned counsel) would tell them what he could with the 
imperfect light he possessed. He understood that the disease was 
caused by an insect named the fluke. This insect was at first very 
minute, it grew gradually, and in the process of time it occupied the 
liver and various internal organs of the sheep. It fed on the sheep; as 
the insect waxed, the sheep waned ; and at the last stage, if the sheep 
died or was killed, the flukes were found flourishing in the liver. Now 
he understood that it took some time for the fluke to develop its<df so 
as to produce a sensibly bad effect on the sheep. A sheep might, there¬ 
fore, be diseased of the fluke for a time and yet exhibit no signs of the 
disease up to a certain point. He was told that this disease was generally 
contracted in the summer. He had before him the opinion of Professor 
Siinonds, of the Veterinary College, London. This writer said that, ac¬ 
cording to a common notion of farmers, the sheep caught the rot some¬ 
where in the autumn,about August or September; but this writer thought 
that they were wrong, because they confounded the symptoms of the dis¬ 
ease with the disease itself, because the symptoms did not generally mani¬ 
fest themselves until Augustor September; but he thought that the disease 
