620 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
was generally contracted in the summer. This view was the more 
probable, because it was known that insect life was more active and 
abundant in the heat of summer than at any other part of the year, and 
if this rot were caused by insects it was most likely to be set up in July 
or about the time of St. Swithin’s day. In support of this, he was told 
that the disease was generally contracted after October, and never after 
November, and this again seemed likely, because they knew that as the 
cold approached insect life became inactive. He only meant that prac¬ 
tically, if a sheep had not got the rot by the 1st of November, there was 
no danger of its catching it; but it was, of course, possible for the sheep 
to show the first signs of the disease after the 1st of November, the 
disease having beem caught before. The learned counsel next described 
the symptoms of the disease. It w r as some time after the disease com¬ 
menced that the symptoms appeared. The first sign of the sheep being 
affected was, he believed, its becoming weak and languid, and disin¬ 
clined to move. If driving the sheep, it was difficult to get it along, as 
it would want to lie down. But even on those signs one could not say 
that the disease was the rot, because similar symptoms arose from other 
diseases than rot. The next signs were that the sheep’s eye became 
dull, and the w r ool came out on touching it. He w^as told that at one 
period the. effect of the disease was to make the sheep fatter, but subse¬ 
quently it fell away, lost flesh, and became lean and gaunt. One sign 
of the disease was a swelling in the neck, called “oil bag.” This ex-- 
planation of the nature and symptoms of the disease was sufficient for 
the purpose of the present inquiry, and he proceeded to apply what he 
had stated to the particular sheep referred to in this case. They were 
bought on the 22nd November, and on the road to the plaintiff’s farm 
they exhibited symptoms of disease. The driver stated that he had 
difficulty in getting them on ; the plaintiff's men, on seeing them at the 
farm, did not like the appearance of them, as the sheep did not appear 
well. The plaintiff was not ready to believe that he had made a bad 
bargain, but rather thought the sheep w'ere dull from travelling. After 
a few days a farmer named Elliott examined the sheep, and said that 
they were coathed, which was the provincial expression for rot. The 
plaintiff w'ould not believe it then, but some time after, when the neigh¬ 
bours expressed their opinion, the plaintiff came at last to the con¬ 
clusion that they were coathed. The plaintiff was occupied with other 
business, and having to go to Bristol, he directed his brother Matthew 
to communicate with the defendant on the subject of the sheep. 
Matthew neglected to do this, and on the plaintiff’s return from Bristol 
he wrote a letter to defendant, on the 21st December, 1861. He sent it 
to his brother John to give it to the defendant. In that letter the 
plaintiff informed defendant that the, sheep showed symptoms of rot, 
and wished him to come and look at them, as he (the plaintiff) should 
hold the defendant responsible for the warranty. The defendant re¬ 
ceived the letter at Boscastle market, and said in reply that the sheep 
were sound when he sold them, and that they must have been coathed 
since. This answer w ? as, of course, the answer that might have been 
expected. The defendant did not, however, go to see the sheep. The 
symptoms that were discovered in them were such as to indicate that 
they had contracted the disease some six weeks or two months before. 
Finding that the defendant did not come to see the sheep, the plaintiff 
called in a veterinary surgeon, named Matthews, who looked at the 
sheep, and pronounced them rotten. On January 28th one. of the sheep 
died ; it was opened, and was found to be coathed. Flukes were in the 
liver. Two were killed, four died. On the 4th February the defendant 
