VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
687 
with it; and Mr. Broad mentioned an instance of this in a horse 
belonging to Mr. Wilkins, which at one time had had its chest 
half full of water. 
Mr. Broad was subjected to a long cross-examination by Mr. 
Norris, the principal object of which was to endeavour to elicit from 
the witness the possibility of the disease described in the horse in 
question having been produced by the hard treatment to which it 
was subjected by the plaintiff—a treatment very different to what 
it had before received; and in support of this hypothesis, Mr. 
Norris quoted an opinion expressed by Professor Spooner (the 
lecturer on anatomy and pathology at the Royal Veterinary Col¬ 
lege), that an adhesion of the pleura and other marks of disease 
which had been described as existing in the present case might be 
produced in forty days. Mr. Broad, however, would not agree in 
this opinion. The Professor, no doubt, was a very good lecturer ; 
but he had never seen much practice, and he could speak with the 
greatest certainty that the state of the horse’s chest in this instance 
could not possibly have been brought about within the time of the 
horse being sold and the time of its death. And, further, Mr. Broad 
said that a horse, even though suffering under the amount of disease 
he had described, might look fat and well, and do its ordinary work 
—such work as this one had been put to by the plaintiff. 
Mr. John Phillips Vincent was next examined, and in the main 
his evidence was corroborative of that given by Mr. Broad, though 
Mr. Vincent could not agree that a horse suffering under such 
disease as that of which the animal in question died would be able 
to perform its ordinary work ; and he very much doubted whether 
the horse had ever had the inflammation of the bowels which it 
was stated to have been suffering from when Mr. Broad first saw it. 
Of one fact, however, he had no doubt,—that the disease of the 
horse’s lungs had been of long standing, and had existed for a con¬ 
siderable time previous to the sale. As a proof of this, Mr. Vincent 
stated that the pericardium was covered by a false membrane 
(attached by a fibrous tissue), which had become so hard that it 
required some degree of force to detach it. But the long pre¬ 
existence of disease was more particularly perceptible from what 
was discovered after the removal of the false membrane covering 
the left lung, viz. the indentations upon the surface of the lung, 
covered by a dense white fibrous tissue of very old date—the 
evident remains of a disease contracted, beyond all question, many 
years since. The subjacent lung, Mr. Vincent added, was also in 
an indurated state; but although there was extensive hepatization 
of the right lung, he did not attach more importance to that, as the 
organization was more recent. 
Mr. Norris then addressed the Jury at some length, on the part 
