VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
329 
the foot I do not know. In this case, the defence was grounded 
entirely on the improbability of the horse suffering from the chronic 
stage of a disease where no acute one had preceded it, the popular 
view of the question as we may call it, and one much more likely 
to be understood by juries than the other or scientific one. What 
other argument the learned gentleman had in store I know not; but 
the powerful ground he took on the above question must have been 
cut from under him, had the animal been described as possessing 
feet unable to stand or perform ordinary work, whether arising 
from lamimtis or not. The fact alone should have been sworn to. 
The nomenclature in disputed, or I may say doubtful, cases of this 
sort, may be supplied, if necessary, by the ingenuity of the gen¬ 
tlemen learned in the law.—If in this case there are some discre¬ 
pancies difficult for the veterinary surgeon to understand, what 
shall be said of the next occurring in your pages, Madders v. Moss, 
in which the first witness speaks of a lump in the near fore pastern 
joint 1 but this we will pass as not professional. The first vete¬ 
rinary surgeon swears he has no spavin, though there is a little 
deposit about the hock; the next finds a bony enlargement on the 
superior spavin , and a bog spavin on each hock ; the third finds 
a bony enlargement on the upper pastern and two bog spavins; 
and the fourth a bony enlargement on the hock, which was unsound¬ 
ness. Besides this, the first professional witness, who said he 
had bog spavins, swears he is not lame; the other, who is of the 
same opinion that bog spavin exists, swears in cross-examination 
that he never knew a horse with a bog spavin move without being 
lame. Now I beg to ask, Mr. Editor, whether you suppose the 
report of this case in your Journal is of any value 1 Not even by 
way of warning can it be so; it is so preposterously incorrect. 
Can it be supposed for a moment that any veterinary surgeon could 
speak of an enlargement on the superior spavin, and, by thus sub¬ 
stituting the name of a disease for the locality in which it might 
exist, bring us altogether into disrepute I Impossible ! and proves, 
I think, that you must report from a different source than the 
newspapers, or your blank pages will be of more value*. 
The last number for the year contains a case from Ireland, 
Nicholson v. Tweedy, as puzzling to the profession as it can well 
be. Here, for the plaintiff, it is sworn the horse is lame from con¬ 
traction, and has the appearance of having been bled in the foot; 
an appearance about which, to a professional man, there ought to 
be no mistake. Another veterinary surgeon for the defence swears 
he is suffering from acute founder in both feet, and he did not see 
* We conceive it oar duty to record every case, as it occurs, without 
reference to its merits, and we possess no other (different) sources but 
newspapers.—E d. Vet. 
VOL. XXII. 
X X 
