VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 623 
the jury were making up their minds against him he hoped that they 
would hear him out. 
The jury continued to consult; after a short time the 'Foreman said— 
“ We find a verdict for plaintiff.” 
Mr. Karslake said that he would ask his Lordship to stay execution, 
as he should move the Court above in this case. 
His Lordship said that it would be better to proceed in the regular 
wav, for Mr. Collier to finish his address, and for him (his Lordship) to 
sum up the evidence to the jury before their verdict was taken. 
Mr. Collier said that he would not further occupy the time of the 
jury. 
The learned Judge said—Gentlemen of the jury, this is a case entirely 
for your consideration; at the same time I think it is right, before you 
come to a verdict, that you should have the points and difficulties on the 
one side and the other set before you, so that you may give your verdict 
after due consideration of the whole case. No doubt the sheep which 
were the subject of the sale were diseased ; in this case there was a sale 
under warranty, and no doubt they were diseased at least in January, 
but the question in the case is whether the disease under which they 
were then labouring was contracted before or after the sale. No doubt 
there are great difficulties on both sides, as it strikes me, and I will 
state to you what those difficulties are. The plaintiff’s case is this. 
He says, I bought the sheep; they went to my brother’s land for the 
night; it was healthy land; they then went to my farm, and there they 
were in Quarry Close, very healthy land, for four or five days, after 
which they were in plaintiff’s farm with the rest of his flock, from that 
time till they were diseased, so manifestly that he was forced to sell 
them. The rest of the flock were healthy, and have been always 
healthy, and he says that it is utterly impossible to conceive how the 
sheep could have got the disease on his farm, because his other sheep, 
which were placed under the same circumstances, were all free from the 
disease. Again, he says, looking at the scientific evidence, it is plain 
that the disease must have been of long standing; he said, by the 
scientific witnesses, that the disease could not be contracted at the time 
of the year when the sheep were bought. These, I think, are the prin¬ 
cipal features in the plaintiff’s case. But 1 must also say that on the 
defendant’s side there are presented formidable difficulties in the way of 
the plaintiff’s case, and I am bound to tell you the main features of the 
defendant’s case. He tells us that those thirty-four sheep which were 
sold at Boscastle fair were taken promiscuously, as he calls it, from his 
flock, all mixed up together, and they were only picked out of the flock 
on the principle of taking all as near as possible of the same size, to 
avoid making an uneven lot for sale. Thirty-four of them having been 
taken out by selection for sale, the lot that remained behind on defend¬ 
ant’s farm remained perfectly healthy from that time to this. Therefore 
there is a very great difficulty in saying how the sheep, the subjects of this 
action, could have been coathed. There, then, is a weaker feature in 
the defendant’s case; weaker, I say, but yet comparatively strong, but 
not so strong as the first feature which I have noticed. You know that 
the defendant’s theory is that those sheep were sound when he sold 
them, and that they caught the disease between the time they were sold 
and the time when the disease was discovered ; and in proof of this, he 
says, not only did the flock which remained on the farm continue 
healthy, but also the lot of ten out of the thirty-four sold at Boscastle 
fair, and bought by Mr. Chubb, are all sound. This is a surprising 
fact, but on that it is said by the plaintiff that all those bought by Mr. 
