154 
EDITORIAL OBSERVATIONS. 
and therefore we must be content to leave the matter as 
it stands. 
It is well known that some veterinary surgeons attach far 
more importance to certain peculiarities of conformation, 
slight defects, or diseases, than do others, and this may often 
be taken as a measure of their experience. Besides, they 
know the interpretation which the public in general put on 
the term soundness, and how apt they are to have their 
decision called in question subsequently by the purchaser of 
a horse. To tell some persons, at the time of the exa¬ 
mination, that the animal has a small bony tumour on one of 
his limbs, or that certain joints are not well formed, adding, 
that these things are practically of no importance, is at once 
sufficient for them to refuse the purchase and to condemn the 
dealer. Supposing, however, that the veterinary surgeon 
refrains from naming such trifles, what then is frequently 
the result ? Why, that he not only loses the confidence of his 
employer, but even incurs his censure. Here, then, is one 
cause, among many others, of the discrepancy we too often 
observe, and hence also a reason why some examiners reject 
and others pass the same horse. All purchasers of horses 
are not “ horse-men and until they become so, and the law 
of warranty remains unaltered, these professional differences 
will obtain, however much they are to be regretted. 
For reasons such as these, the position in which a scientific 
witness is placed in our courts of law is often a very anoma¬ 
lous one. Too frequently, also, he is considered to be little 
more than a partisan of either the plaintiff or the defendant 
for whom he may appear; and it is to be feared that some¬ 
times he does lend himself to the one or the other; whereas 
he has alone to do with truth. His evidence ought always 
to be given free from any party bias, “ the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth,” being his motto. Possibly 
the neglect of this, arising from some reserve being made, or 
evasions resorted to, has led to the condemnation of his 
evidence, and often unjustly so. 
Without going into other causes of the discrepancies 
which are met with among us, as on this occasion they would 
