62:1 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
them, which he bought; that those sheep had all been seen shortly 
before by competent judges, who would speak of their being healthy 
and strong to all appearance ; and that the ten left out of the Hock, 
sold at Boscastle fair, were sold to Mr. Chubb, a farmer, who had not 
lost a single one of these sheep by the coat he. If these facts were proved 
it would satisfy the jury that the sheep were not coathed when in the 
possession of the defendant. If so, they must have been diseased after 
they were bought, and to show that this was the case he would prove 
that the farm where the sheep lay the first night had coathed land on it, 
and that the plaintiff’s own farm had coathed land. The learned counsel 
then called a number of witnesses, as follows : 
Mr. William Hoskin, who saw the plaintiff examine the eyes of the 
sheep before he bought them ; and said that not one of his father’s 
flock from which the plaintiff’s lot had been selected was coathed. The 
defendant stated evidence to similar effect, maintaining that his land 
had never been coathed. Mr. Beal, a farmer, examined the flock before 
they were sold, and observed that they were sound, to the best of his 
judgment. Mr. Bray, a sheep-breeder, said that, in his opinion, Car- 
withen farm was coathed. Mr. Emmanuel Chubb bought the ten sheep 
left of the defendant’s flock after the plaintiff’ had bought his twenty- 
four ; he found them all free from coathe. Mr. Philip Braund spoke to 
the unhealthy state of the plaintiff’s farm, arising, as he said, from the 
heavy deadness of the land. Thomas Ivy, Henry Cottle, and Mr. Braund, 
having been examined, Mr. Snell, and his son, Mr W. Snell, gave 
evidence. From their evidence it appeared that the elder Mr. Snell sent a 
flock of sheep which he had had a long time on his land to pasture at his 
son’s farm near Hatherleigh. They were there ten days in November, 
and were slaughtered a month after, when full-sized flukes were found 
in their livers. But a ram which had not been sent with the sheep to 
the farm at Hatherleigh, and which was slaughtered at the same time as 
the sheep, was found free from coatlie. This was a proof, as Mr. Kars- 
lake represented, that sheep could be coathed in November, and that 
flukes come to their full size in a month. Mr. Jose, a fanner and a 
neighbour of the defendant, said that the defendant’s farm was free 
from coathe. This was the evidence for the defendant. 
Mr. Karslake ably summed up the evidence for the defence. 
Mr. Collier made a powerful reply on the whole evidence. He said 
that the defendant had made an attempt to stigmatise the plaintiff’s 
land as coathed, but he said that a more abortive attempt to mislead the 
jury had never been made. The defendant had not proved that the 
plaintiff had ever had a rotten sheep on his farm, he being on his oath, 
that he never had. This miserable attempt recoiled on those who made 
it. Now, his learned friend pretended that the sheep were infected on 
the plaintiff’s farm, but his learned friend was lifted with his own 
petard, because if the thirty-four sheep were coathed on the plaintiff’s 
farm, how came it that the other sheep on the plaintiff’s farm were alive 
and well? This was the best evidence that the sheep were not diseased 
on the plaintiff’s farm. Touching the Hatherleigh case, of sheep 
coathed in November, the learned counsel said that he would not follow 
his learned friend into that case, because if they attempted to try that 
they should have been kept there all night; and, he added, that if his 
learned friend had felt himself strong on the Boscastle case, he would 
not have introduced the Hatherleigh case to the notice of the jury. 
(Laughter.) 
Mr. Collier was proceeding with his address when the jury interrupted 
him by consulting. Mr. Collier ceased speaking, and then said that if 
