684 
V ETERI NARY JU R IS PR U DEN C E. 
June 2d, two P.M. —Pulse 49—breathing and all the other symp¬ 
toms in a more favourable way—cough stronger. The draught 
continued. I shall not intrude further upon your space, but merely 
add that the mare gradually got better. The draught was omitted 
the next day, but again repeated, after which she had some fever 
and cough balls, the cough being the last of the symptoms that 
remained when she went to work, which was just a fortnight 
after I first saw her.—May I be favoured with your opinion of the 
case 1 
*** The mare, we think, must have have eaten or had some¬ 
thing given to her that disagreed with her.—E d. Vet. 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
Devizes County Court, Tuesday, September 11, 1849. 
[From “ The Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette.”] 
Burrows v. Norris. 
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a coal-hauler at 
Trowbridge, to recover the value of a horse purchased of John 
Norris, a miller at Stert, near Devizes, on an alleged breach of 
warranty; and, like most “ horse cases,” presented some rather 
singular features, the evidence adduced being as contradictory as 
could be well imagined, not only as to matters of fact, but, in the 
opinions given by the veterinary surgeons examined, all of whom 
were members of the Veterinary College, and gentlemen who have 
not only had considerable experience, but who are looked upon as 
men possessed of superior skill in their profession. 
A Jury was summoned to determine the question. 
Mr. H. Hulbert , who appeared for the plaintiff (in the absence 
of Mr. Wittey), stated that the sum sought to be recovered was 
£15..19s., on an alleged breach of warranty; £11..15s., the amount 
paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the horse in question, and 
£4. As. veterinary expenses incurred in attending the animal whilst 
alive, and in making a post-mortem examination. The Jury would 
hear, from witnesses who would be called, that on the 2d of July 
Burrows bought a horse of defendant, stipulating that a warranty 
should be given with it. This was agreed to, and the purchase 
was accordingly made. But it would appear that, immediately 
after the plaintiff had got the animal home, it shewed symptoms of 
disease, and continued to get worse till its death, which took place 
