62 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
galloped the horse backward and forward on the bad roads as hard as 
possible. The horse has flat and rather broad feet. Don’t know that 
broad and flat feet are not liable to injury. The roads are not particu¬ 
larly bad in ruy neighbourhood. On the Saturday I went to defendant 
I don’t know whether I complained of the horse’s fore legs. I know I 
complained of it in my letter. On the Monday I went to Sodbury I 
started in the morning. Never knew a horse stumble on his hind feet. 
Had no conversation with Mr. Leigh about the horse before. I told him 
that 1 believed there was a lameness. Had some difficulty and schem¬ 
ing to see the horse. T was not aware that Mr. Neale had a case at the 
assizes till afterwards. Mr. Neale’s bailiff told me that neither his 
master nor the horse were at home. We found the horse on another 
farm occupied by Mr. Neale. I thought there was a little scheming, 
because I had information that the horse was only a mile or two from 
the other farm. When the horse was in the stable, it often pointed on 
the off fore foot. I never spoke to Rawlings of Yatton Keynell, to get 
him to settle the action. I never said that I didn’t care if I could only 
get a verdict. 
Re-examined by Mr. Edlin—I heard in my own place about three 
weeks since that the horse had been galloped by my man Defendant 
once said to me that he thought there was a little hair off the hip, but 
never complained to me that the horse had been improperly treated 
whilst in my possession. 
By the Jury—The horse was not shod with leather when I bought it 
of Curtis. 
William Bushell, plaintiff’s farrier, and James Bream, plaintiff’s man¬ 
servant, were both tendered by Mr. Edlin for examination, but no 
questions were put to either witness. 
Edwin Bailey was next called and examined by Mr. Edlin—Is a 
farmer at Nettleton. Witnessed the warranty. Defendant said the 
horse was sound and good in harness. Went to Chipping Sodbury with 
plaintiff when he went to see Mr. Limbrick. The horse went better up 
hill than down. Stumbled on both his fore feet, and should fancy he 
was not a safe horse in harness. Heard Mr Curtis say he would get 
another horse in a week or so. When the horse was on the top of a hill 
he cubbled, and went decidedly lame on his fore feet, and stepped as 
though he was afraid to step out and go forward. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Jones—Don’t know but what I said this at 
the last hearing, or something to the same purport. Mr. Ward’s gig is 
a light one. The horse went lame both on rough ground and down 
hill. Curtis did not say he would give me a new hat if Mr. Ward 
t ought the horse. 
Bv the Jury—The horse was lame on the off fore foot. 
Mr. John Kent, veterinary surgeon, of Bristol, examined by Mr. 
Edlin—I obtained my diploma in 1813, and have been in practice fortv- 
eight years, during which time I have had great experience in the treat¬ 
ment of horses. On the 22d July last 1 met Mr. Ward at the Corsham 
Station. Mr. Ward then showed me the horse in question. I examined 
it for the purpose of expressing a scientific opinion. Examined the two 
fore feet very carefully, and found the feet diseased and the horse lame. 
There was general disease of both fore feet, it was sensible to the 
touch. Ossification was going on in the cartilages of both feet—the off 
foot was most diseased. The disease could not be seen. I produce a 
horse’s foot with cartilages. In the one produced the cartilages are 
elastic. In the horse in question the cartilages were replaced by ossifi¬ 
cation. Ossification had been going on many months. The disease is 
