284 
VETER1NARY JU RISPRUDENCE. 
neck, and, with three assistants, effected its extraction. I lastly 
removed the placenta ; bathed the parts with equal portions of 
vinegar and cold water; put on the ropes in the way already 
pointed out in The Veterinarian ; gave a dose of physic, 
covered her with a warm blanket, and left her quiet; enjoining a 
person to watch her, and keep the bandage in its place. She was 
ordered chilled water, but no food. 
I visited her next day, and found the cow looking well. The 
physic was operating, and she was drinking freely. I slackened 
the bandages a little, and ordered bran or turnip gruel. 
Two days after I visited her again. There had been no part of 
either vagina or rectum protruded since the calf was extracted. I 
removed all the bandages, and ordered bran and turnip mashes. 
I have visited her several times since. She is thriving, and 
looks as if nothing of the kind had happened. She is intended to 
be fed on grass, as I have advised the owner not to allow her to 
have a calf again. 
Dalkeith, 16th April, 1849. 
P.S.—I think it always best, in cases where there is likely to be 
difficulty of extracting the calf, or where the cow is not prepared 
for calving, to amputate the fore legs by the shoulders at once. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Oxford Circuit—Stafford. 
CASE OF WARRANTY. 
Stokes v. Shotton. 
Mr. Whatley and Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff; 
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Woolrych for the defendant. 
This was an action of trover for a horse. In December 1847 
the plaintiff bought of the defendant, who is a horse-dealer at 
Woverhampton, a horse for £10, and paid down £9, keeping 
the remaining pound till he should ascertain whether the horse 
would answer a warranty given by the defendant that the horse 
was sound and a good worker. After keeping the horse for some 
days, the plaintiff sent him back, alleging that he did not answer 
the warranty, and demanded his £9. The defendant refused to 
